< April 16	April 18 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Toaquiza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources consist of statistic results along with IAAF profile pages. Zero in-depth or partial coverage of individual exists. WP:BEFORE search reveals nothing. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Delete per changes in WP:NSPORTS2022. Skipple ☎ 23:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Sports, and Olympics. Skipple ☎ 23:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ecuador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom; it really does seem like zero coverage at all, even in some South American sources. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. According to IAAF records, in the article, her highest ranking for any of her distances she ran world-wide was 291st. I would also agree WP:NSPORTS2022 applies. Equine-man (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Tekken characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Marduk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He has received no commentary, no WP:sigcov, but full of listicles for ex. "At 8 feet tall, with a chest like a beer keg, Marduk is a man's man – a hairy, barroom brawler." Failing WP:GNG. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Merge to List of Tekken characters - every single source concerns the characters as a group, with small amounts of coverage individually, so there is no indication he passes WP:GNG. Sources elsewhere are only trivial mentions in announcements. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Well, here's one I can get behind. In sources I've searched for per WP:BEFORE, I'm not seeing much, beyond what's already cited in the article. That being said, I think it's time to give these AFDs a rest for a while, GlatorNator. I know I'm not alone with this mindset. MoonJet (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
umm, maybe no. An admin like Sergecross73 made a comment like this [1]. Stating that nominations are acceptable "especially if many have been closed as merge/redirect". So far with dozens of character articles were nom'ed only Reptile did survived. Again, that's your opinion. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like, optimally, it would have been great to bundle them as a group nomination, but then it risks something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles where it ends in an utter disaster and trainwreck. So I think nominating individually is fine even if some people are interpreting it as spamming the process. So far there has been little in the way of sources presented that might suggest the AfDs are off the mark somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while I have some concerns about the declining quality of some of these nominations (not this one) you're unlikely to be declared disruptive or anything of the sort of they keep largely closing as merge/delete, which most still are. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The sources are discussing everyone in Tekken, not just him. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.
Kazama16 (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Tekken characters. Fails WP:GNG as a character. The person who loves reading (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Club X[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced beyond one source (not enough SIGCOV), and searching for "Club X" on google easily confuses with many other clubs, one of which is also a draft I'm working on. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no SIGCOV found in a search as well. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is plenty of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in the last discussion by @Michig: such as [2], [3], [4], [5], so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 3 and 4 mention Club X more in passing. The Guardian doesn't focus solely on Club X but just mentions it as another cancelled show along with others, it's a maybe when it comes to notability. Only Source 1 could maybe establish notability, but that website is a dedicated dictionary of every British TV show that ever existed and doesn't establish Club X. Are there other sources which can establish the notability of the TV show? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG based on sources found. It's from 1989 so not as much will be available online, but I'm sure there was more back then. The Daily Telegraph, Apr 22, 1989., The Guardian, Apr 27, 1989., The Observer, Apr 23, 1989. 3 other sources listed in previous discussion if anyone has access to British newspaper archive, not sure if any are the same as these but those 3 should of been enough for GNG, they just need to make their way into article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources found on Newspapers.com demonstrate significant coverage exists. The Telegraph article is a significant find. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources available per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Rose[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Coverage is mainly travel listings or very local as per WP:AUD. Also searched by previous name. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). I'm not convinced nominator has completed a thorough search for sources. I was able to find coverage of the property as Riverside West Motor Hotel, a Four Points by Sheraton, Hotel Fifty, and Hotel Rose quite quickly. I've expanded the entry to include book, newspaper, journal, and magazine coverage spanning at least a decade, and I've not even checked the Oregonian archives yet. This article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AC Hotel Portland Downtown[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Coverage is mainly travel listings or very local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Oregon. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). I'm not convinced nominator has done a thorough reviewing of sourcing. I quickly identified in-depth coverage in sources which are not specific to a local audience. I've expanded the entry with more than a dozen sources and I've not even attempted to access the Oregonian archives yet. This is the third time in 48 hours I've disagreed with nominator about hotel entries. I believe this article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Aoidh (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harland Hand Memorial Garden[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Going to AfD because of a previous PROD. I don't see evidence of notability, just a handful of local news stories. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 22:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources in article, source eval:

Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 1. Joyce, Alice (March 27, 2002). "Harland Hand made the most of a hillside with a view". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved February 19, 2009.
Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 2. ^ Eaton, Joe; Sullivan, Ron (2012-07-17). "Harland Hand Memorial Garden on tour". SFGATE. Retrieved 2023-04-17.
Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 3. ^ McCormick, Kathleen (September 2000). The Garden Lover's Guide to the West. Princeton Architectural Press. ISBN 978-1-56898-166-6.
Interview, promo >> 4. ^ "East Bay garden tour set for July 22". The Mercury News. 2012-07-12. Retrieved 2023-04-17.

// Timothy :: talk 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Reliable sources available. The person who loves reading (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Caution Zone[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neat, but doesn't appear to be notable. There was a brief flurry of human-interest news stories when it was built, but nothing indicating actual lasting notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and California. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the HuffPo article is fine, I found this [6]. Seems to be at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per article sources // Timothy :: talk 16:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lucy (comedian)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a semi-procedural nomination. I declined an WP:A7 on this article back in 2016 and improved it a bit, then forgot about it. It was then edited extensively by a relative of the subject, who I assume didn't have the experience of writing neutral biographies on Wikipedia, despite me warning them not to where it was deleted per WP:G11. I don't think that applies as CSDs are only applicable if all revisions meet the criteria. However, I'm not sure what to do with the article, and erring on the side of caution for BLPs, I think an AfD is best to see whether we should have this article or not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think he's notable in Scotland mostly, I find this [7] but I can't find anything else about him. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I found some interviews and reviews of his show at Edinburgh Fringe, but nothing that really goes into much detail. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Collectible card game. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tap (gaming)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, it's literally just a dictionary definition and a few examples. There is Glossary of video game terms for this. Does not seem independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not overly familiar with the topic, but is the term "tap" only officially used with Magic, with other card games that use the same style of gameplay using their own terms for it? That is the impression I am getting from the current article, at least. If that is the case, then a redirect to Magic: The Gathering rules#Tapping and untapping might be the best bet. The suggested Glossary of video game terms would not really be appropriate in this case, as this is a Collectible card game term, not a video game term. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to collectible card game. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY and the best way to cover this is in the context of the style of game where it comes up. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Actually, with the related patent and coverage of it maybe there is enough to get an article? Or maybe we could get a "standard mechanics of CCGs" article? But for now, I think Shooterwalker is correct even if that merge target isn't ideal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the entry on Wiktionary [8]. It has an entry there already, refs might be merged but I don't think the details in the article are appappropriate for a merge. // Timothy :: talk 04:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to collectible card game. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY I believe Shooterwalker has the best suggestion. Equine-man (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, GNG does not appear to be met. I wonder if we need a glossary of board game terms? PS. To be clear, I think this term may be used in board games (card games) other than CCGs too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Mountain Party#State elections. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Johnson (West Virginia politician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable perennial third party candidate. SecretName101 (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and West Virginia. SecretName101 (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep there is no deletion rationale presented. Being a multi-time candidate is not a reason to delete an article. Moreover, the nominator hasn't done the necessary work WP:BEFORE nominating this article, as there are multiple published independent sources on Johnson such as [9], and [10].--User:Namiba 17:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba Lack of notability is the reason for deletion. Wikipedia:POLITICIAN does not assign him notability. Perennial candidate for significant offices will have plentiful published independent sources that cover them. But being mentioned in such sources does not itself does not itself assign notability. You have to assess what those articles say about it and if the facts they assert about the individual assign them note.

"candidate is running" "candidate exists" articles are not sufficient to establish notability. Elections they run in might even be of note, but that does not mean the candidates themselves are, or that it is justified to provide them anything more than a description/mention within the articles for the elections themselves.

A great many non-notable subjects get covered every day by independent sources. The existence of independent sources does not establish notability. What is covered within those sources must be assessed.

This is a run-of-the-mill non-notable perennial candidate who does not justify and independent article. SecretName101 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba also please read. Your assertion that there is no deletion rationale completely ignores that the first two words of the nomination cite lack of notability, which is indeed a very clear deletion rationale. SecretName101 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would suggest that any verifiable information about his candidacies mentioned here be transplanted to the articles about the elections themselves if they are worth adding there and not already present. SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming someone is "non-notable" is not citing Wikipedia policy on notability. Being a perennial candidate is also not a valid reason to delete an article, if they have receive noteworthy coverage. If you looked for said coverage before nominating, you would have found it: HuffPost, Living On Earth, Herald-Dispatch.--User:Namiba 11:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba "Candidate exists" is not notable coverage. WP:Politician "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". SecretName101 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post and Living on Earth are both national publications which certainly do not cover every candidate in-depth, much less every Green Party candidate. The Herald Dispatch article is in-depth, independent sourcing as well. You should probably read the sources before continuing to minimize the positions of anyone who disagrees with you. More words doesn't make you right.--User:Namiba 01:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My first thought was, "who?", and I certainly understand why many West Virginians—including myself—have never heard of him, or at best heard him mentioned briefly as an also-ran who was quickly forgotten. Being endorsed by a minor political figure from somewhere else in the country isn't that helpful, although Ken Hechler's endorsement is a bit more so in West Virginia. Clearly Johnson doesn't appear to be a major political force in the state. But all that said, he was the nominee of West Virginia's only significant third party on multiple occasions. And I don't think the bar for demonstrating notability is particularly high. I think this person meets our minimum criteria for notability. P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius you outlined really good points for failure to meet notability, actually. WP:Politician notability is not met. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Being a Green Party nominee for those offices is not inherently notable. SecretName101 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion; it's not mine. And arguing with everyone whose opinion differs from yours doesn't invalidate their opinions. P Aculeius (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think if the article can be framed in terms of any sort of ballot access cases or firsts, a case could be made. I made this point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Redpath, but to no avail.Mpen320 (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine campaign coverage typically does not establish notability to pass WP:NPOL. Losing multiple elections does not warrant an article, even if there were typical mentions of their presence in the race, and I don't see this ordinary coverage reaching significance needed for an article for a minor perennial candidate. The first link by Namiba above does not have any biographical coverage but simply mentions the possibility of being a spoiler in 2010 United States Senate special election in West Virginia (that's a good redirect option, but getting less than 2% of the vote doesn't earn you an article) and the second is an routine interview they did of everyone on the ballot, which is not independent coverage.Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~2010 United States Senate special election in West Virginia#General election~~ Mountain Party#State elections as a viable ATD. Per nom, Mpen320, and Reywas92, the coverage (including the citations presented in this discussion) fall short of the RS-based significant coverage (aside from run-of-the-mill campaign coverage) needed to meet the criteria of either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sal2100 May I recommend as an alternative redirect target Mountain Party. I think that that is better than selecting just one of his elections to redirect to. SecretName101 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretName101: I agree that that would be a better page to redirect to, and have amended my comment above accordingly. Sal2100 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively as suggested. Perennial candidates can be notable if, and even because, they run many times. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian yes, I definitely agree that perennial candidates can garner notability through their runs. I have even created new articles on perennial candidates, and actually have the start of a draft for another such article saved on my Google Docs account for later work. I just believe that this particular perennial candidate falls below the threshold, as you evidently also do as indicated by your support for a merge. SecretName101 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Primary, promo, taken from "Jesse for Governor website" >> 1. "Jesse Johnson - WV Mountain Party". Archived from the original on 2012-02-11. Retrieved 2008-04-15.
Promo from their election committee >> 2. ^ Committee to Elect Jesse Johnson Archived 2008-05-09 at the Wayback Machine
Stats >> 3. ^ 2008 presidential ballots, Green Party, archived at the Wayback Machine, November 26, 2008.
Routine endorsement news >> 4. ^ "Sierra Club endorses Jesse Johnson for WV Governor" Archived 2009-01-05 at the Wayback Machine, Green Party Watch, October 6, 2008.
Stats >> 5. ^ Statewide Results, West Virginia Secretary of State Election Results Center, archived at the Wayback Machine, November 26, 2008.
Routine endorsement news >> 6. ^ Associated Press, "Hechler endorses Johnson in W.Va. senate race", Marietta Times, September 9, 2010, at Green Senatorial Campaign Committee, archived at the Wayback Machine, July 26, 2011.
Stats >> 7. ^ WV Governor, Our Campaigns, retrieved July 11, 2016.

BEFORE showed promo intervews, nothing meeting IS RS with SIGCOV addressing with subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).

BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, game news, database, promo.

No objection to a consensus REDIRECT after deletion to remove BLP violations. // Timothy :: talk 01:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've added the Huffington Post, Truth Dig, and Living on Earth references to the article. Standard perennial local candidates do not coverage like this.--User:Namiba 12:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We should have a very low bar for public figures. As a statewide candidate for governor of WV in 2004 who garnered a not-insignificant 2.5% of the vote, this is one. For those of you looking to cross your Ts and dot your Is with GNG, take [11] piece in the Beckley [WV] Register-Herald, "U.S. Senate Candidate Conversations — Jesse Johnson." Or [Gubernatorial candidate profiles: Mountain Party’s Jesse Johnson|THIS PIECE] from the same publication in 2014, "Gubernatorial candidate profiles: Mountain Party’s Jesse Johnson." GNG pass as well as a logical keep for a comprehensive encyclopedia such as WP. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for BLPs is clear: WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as appropriate to Mountain Party#State elections. In general, Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign brochures and the community makes no effort to provide equal coverage to candidates running for public office (my thoughts about the notability of candidates). The standard for a candidate who does not already hold a position that passes WP:NPOL is GNG - with a strong emphasis on coverage that rises above routine coverage about the election (and usually involves national or international coverage). I do not see this level of coverage here. --Enos733 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Ali Ghazipuri[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer. Looks like a promotional page. I didn't find anything when I did WP:BEFORE. Gazal world (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, was unable to find anything WP:BEFORE. Reads like a resume/promo page. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, not notable enough for an article. -- Wesoree ^(t·c) 14:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed most of the sources from the article as being unreliable, non-independent and/or not mentioning the subject. I have serious doubts about the reliability and independence of the one remaining source, and can find no others. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds it could be promotional. No notability. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Order of St. Luke the Physician[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not appear to be independantly notable and is mostly a page promoting the power of faith healing. Possible sources in further reading are either primary sources, do not mention the subject at all, or mentions are trivial. Nothing in my BEFORE was enough to convince me this would meet WP:NCORP. I didn't realize there was previously a PROD in 2008, so I'm starting this AfD now. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Medicine. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "International Order of St. Luke the Physician", "Order of St. Luke the Physician", and a number of searches including "OSL" all failed to bring up anything suggesting notability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an EpiscopalIAN, I've heard of them, but they are sort of FRINGEY. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to the Faith healing article as there are enough academic sources in the further reading section to justify that, in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in article are primary. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the further reading section shows some academic and secondary sources, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the further reading section in my nom. Are you seeing something I'm not? The more academic sources didn't seem to mention this organization at all. I'm not sure what exactly would be merged. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Singh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rejected by AFC reviewers multiple times. Not significantly improved as per comments by the AFC reviewers, moved the page to the main space by one non-AFC reviewer. NP83 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. NP83 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, India, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page looks ridiculous in main space with all of those AFC tags and comments. Why didn't you move it back to Draft space? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz actually I saw after publishing the article to the main space by an user, An experienced user made this edit without draftifiyng the article from the main space so thought of creating a AFD. NP83 (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take my edits to have any meaning, but saying that the article has already been draftified once. So AfD was probably the right way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I edited on Wikipedia for the first time, so I made a mistake because I did not understand the sources so much and now I am continuously making new articles with good sources and you can also see that I have added good sources in this too. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This person also holds an important place in the history of Rajasthan like Maharana Pratap and Prithviraj Chauhan. That's why it was possible to find its source, but the problem in the article was due to its different names. Otherwise the article would not have taken so much time. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe someone with access to a research library could find some reliable sources, but searches on google, google scholar, and google books fail to bring up anything useful. Sidenote: why do we let people resubmit the same article half a dozen time when they have demonstrated zero willingness and/or ability to improve the article? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the feedback here is very useful in assessing this article. Unless someone can find clear WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources, this needs to go. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I really tried with this one, using variations of the names given in the article, and turned up very little. While there are book sources listed in the article, it looks like they have very little with regard to WP:SIGCOV about this person's life story and rule. AFAICT, pretty much all we know about them is their name and that they existed, which may be enough for a line in another article or an entry in a list of rulers of the state they ruled or whatever, but there's not enough available to hang a whole article on. --Jayron 32 12:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources in the article now seem to be very good, but there is no demonstration of WP:SIGCOV. Would it be possible for @Karsan Chanda:, or someone else with access, to post here the exact text in the sources which mentions Alan Singh? Boynamedsue (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alan Singh Chanda is a figure in the folkloric tradition of the Meena community, whose historicity is essentially indeterminable. As Hooja says While the historicity of Tod's tale has been looked askance by scholars, similar popular versions continue to be told and re-told in Dhoondhar even today.. And as Jadunath Sarkar notes (p. 22), all the variant versions were at best written down in the 18th c from oral tradition. The dates that the events central to the legends of Alan (the betrayal and killing of Alan by a Rajput usurper whom he had given refuge to as a child) are dated to ca 1007... or maybe 1128. There is little detail of the person in the any of these legends that would justify a stand-alone biographical article. And since several versions of these legends exist, trying to write a wiki-bio risks synthesizing a chimeric biography with bits and pieces aggregated from these variants (for example, the versions I read don't contain claims that Alan "established the city of Amber and got the Amber Fort constructed" but I wouldn't be surprised if such embellishments exist in some other tellings).

(TL;DR) there may be a place on wikipedia to write about the legends that mention Alan Singh Chanda, but a biographical article is not the way to go. Abecedare (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have read the story of Khogong and not of Khoh because both are same area and in Khoh area Chanda is mentioned but there is no story like Tod in it. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which reference should I read for the story of Khoh?Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the story of Khoh, you can read all the sources available on the Khoh article. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to one or two (incl. page numbers) that are most relevant to Alan Singh Chanda? Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khoh^[1]^[2] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karsan Chanda Please can you provide the exact text, with translation into English if necessary. It may be that significant coverage exists, but the onus is on you to demonstrate this. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are better editors on Wikipedia than me who can explain it properly. Anyway I am unable to see these sources. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Hooja and all the relevant material is in snippets on pp. 391-95, wherein Hooja quotes Tod to talk about "Ralunsi, the Meena Raja" who was betrayed by the Rajput Dulha Rai (pp. 391-92); quotes Sarkar to talk about a "Ralhan-si, the Chauhan rajah of Lalsot district" who married his daughter to Dulha Rai and instigated him to attack his rivals (p. 393); and a "Meena chief called Chanda" who ruled the Meenas of Khoh, who Dulha Rai successfully attacked supposedly after already establishing a base kingdom and entering the marriage-alliances (p.394). No idea if these incompatible tales are about the same person. And no mention of "Alan Singh Chanda" per se. Further illustrates the risk of on-wiki synthesis.

I don't have access to Kachhawan Ri Vanshavali (Genealogy of the Kachhwaha).

Abecedare (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kachhawan Ri Vanshavali. pp. Vll, 113, 125.
^ Rima Hooja (2006). A history of Rajasthan. Rupa & Co. pp. 144, 394, 395. ISBN 9788129108906. OCLC 80362053.

the name of the place to Ramgard Dulha Rai then attacked deoti and held his sway over the place by ousting the Badgujars. Next he killed Chanda Mina of Khoh, Geta Mina of Getter and shifted his residence to Khoh from Dausa. It was at Khoh that Sodhdev expired in the year V S. 1063 (1006 A.D.)(p.VII).; Chanda Mina Chanda was not the proper name of the Mina ruler of Khoh . His name was Alansi and he was from the Chanda sub - caste of the Minas(p.113).; Finding it as an appropriate occasion, the Minas ousted the family from Manchi and the poor mother had to seek employment with Ralhan Mina of the 'Chanda' caste at Khoh on the advice of a 'Gujar'(p.125). -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot more in this but it is not possible to see. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, from what we are seeing here, there seems to be a problem with Common Name? Whoever we are talking about in these books doesn't seem to be called Alan Singh. Does the Madan Meena article mention the name?

I am also a little worried about an article being written on the basis of a source that hasn't been fully read. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name Alan Singh Chanda is present in Madan Meena's article. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, could you possibly, as requested, say how many paragraphs are present in the text which deal primarily with ASC? Boynamedsue (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the way it is written, there will be a big paragraph but it is impossible to see. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...Tod in his book Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan in which Dulhe Rai and his mother were given protection by Alan Singh Chanda (the Meena chief) when they were exiled from...;… It was only after the deception of Dulhe Rai Kuchhawa with the Chanda Meena Alan Singh that the enmity between the Meenas and Rajputs became a lust for power. With the growing … -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now The only source presented so far that may provide significant coverage has not been read by any editor, as far as I can tell. It may be that there is more out there, but it is pointless to set up an article at this stage. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this, it seems that it needs to take more trouble so that it can be explained properly. That's why the editors should not be in a hurry in this article. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are weak or non-existent. The best case scenario is that Alan Singh was a non-notable local chief mentioned by Tod (not WP:RS). At worst, given the general unreliability of Tod, he never existed. RegentsPark (comment) 12:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

book |first=Dick |last=Kooiman |year=2002|title=Communalism and Indian Princely States: Travancore, Baroda, and Hyderabad in the 1930s |publisher=Manohar|quote=CHANDA MEENA was the title of Bhil-Meena kings. Amer city (Modern Jaipur) was built by King AALAN SINGH CHANDA MEENA who ruled over Khoh Nagoriyan kingdom. Later days Chanda's and Chauhans who ruled over Delhi were closely related. Prithivi raj Chauhan's son was married to Aalan Singh Chanda's daughter.Rajputs themselves thus have some Bana Meena blood. Originally Chanda were considered a sub group of Chauhans a title of Banas. Chauhans later joined the Rajputs. By 1037 AD Amber kingdom of Chanda rulers was conquered by Kachwaha Rajputs ending Meena Chanda rule. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Karsan Chanda: What is the page number for that quote? Abecedare (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Karsan Chanda has mistaken a user review for book content. The quote is in a "user review" on the linked google books page, not in the book itself.RegentsPark (comment) 00:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. I'm speechless that someone could mis-attribute random and nonsensical rantings on the inter-webs to a scholar writing about a completely different era and area of India. Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Originally Chanda were considered a sub group of Chauhans with a title of Banas." When we search on Google by quoting this line, this information will be found but not the page number. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zaporizke, Velykomykhailivka rural hromada, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rejected by AFC reviewers multiple times. Not significantly improved as per comments by the AFC reviewers, moved the page to the main space by one non-AFC reviewer. NP83 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: NP83 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps relevant information could be found at https://ukrstat.gov.ua/ State Statistics Service of Ukraine. I'm reluctant to say that a village isn't notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A page for the village with more information than this one here exists on the Ukrainian Wikipedia; uk:Запорізьке (Покровський район). Physeters^✉ 04:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per WP:GEOLAND, populated places are "typically presumed to be notable", and looking at the sources, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that this is a populated, legally recognised place. It's hard to find sources (not least because "Zaporizke" is not a unique name – there are several villages by that name in Ukraine) and some of the existing sources are pretty weak, so some cleanup is needed but I do think it is a notable topic. As an aside, I can't see that this has been declined (much less rejected) in AfC, unless there are older, deleted drafts; it was created in mainspace, draftified by an NPP patroller, and then moved back to mainspace by the draft creator. --bonadea contributions talk 09:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is spare, but already has enough to demonstrate notability as a populated settlement and location of historical events. —Michael Z. 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: because the subject of the article is a populated place it passes WP:GEOLAND, so it notable even if the article needs some improvement. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: poorly sourced, but passes NGEO. Needs a better title. // Timothy :: talk 07:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - okay, here's the issue with the above keep !votes. While they are all correct that if this was a legally recognized populated place, it would pass GEOLAND, there is not a single source which says that. Indeed, none of the current sources even mention this location (except for the non-reliable weather link). I could not find any information using the link provided by Eastmain (but that could be due to the language barrier). The Ukrainian page appears to solely sourced to the weather reference. If someone can provide a link that actually shows this is a legally recognized place, please ping me. This is one of about 1-2 dozen articles created by this same editor, all which have the same sourcing issues.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While the first source in the table does not mention the village per se, it does show its location on the map. The second source in the table links to a different Zaporizke located in Volnovakha Raion, Donetsk Oblast. The fourth source should link to a page on understandingwar.org, though a quick search of that site does not yield any results. Physeters^✉ 02:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  This page for the former Berezivka Village Council^uk:wikilists Zaporizke as one of its subordinate "population centers". https://regulation.gov.ua/catalogue/regulators/id982/functions Physeters^✉ 04:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Onel5969 Here is a page for the village on another Ukrainian government website, albeit it is quite bare; https://decentralization.gov.ua/locality/24393 Physeters^✉ 04:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:GEOLAND, and see https://gromada.info/gromada/vmyhaylivska/#1699 --Yakudza (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:onel5969
https://opentopomap.org/#map=12/47.8548/36.5553			The source does not mention this location	✘ No
https://www.qwant.com/maps/place/admin:osm:relation:3946993@Zaporizke_87100#map=15.20/47.3804267/37.6530284		?	the source does not indicate what this is, appears to be an intersection	✘ No
https://weather.in.ua/ua/dnepropetrovskaja/8496		No editorial oversight	Simple mention of the location	✘ No
dev-isw.bivings.com	? Dead link	? Dead link	Dead link	✘ No
https://t.me/dsszzi_official/2337	Appears independent	? Cannot tell if there is any editorial oversight	Does not mention the location	✘ No
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-troops-shell-dnipropetrovsk-oblast-220452993.html	Major news conglomerator		Does not mention the location	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Comment. As to the name, it should be renamed to Zaporizke, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and the other one to Zaporizke, Kryvyi Rih Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. The hromada name is unnecessary per Wikipedia:UAPLACE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the hromada is specified is because there are three villages called Zaporizke in Synelykove Raion. This one, which is in Velykomykhailivka rural hromada, a second one in Slavhorod settlement hromada, and a third in Mezhova settlement hromada. Physeters^✉ 17:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the other two villages don't have articles. And is there more than one village by that name in Kryvyi Rih Raion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a second Zaporizke in Apostolove rural hromada. Physeters^✉ 19:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . If a suitable list is created, the article could be redirected. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nilan Fernando[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nilan Fernando

Stub, by Lugnuts, on a cricketer who does not satisfy the current version of sports notability. This stub does not satisfy WP:NCRICKET as it currently is written, or general notability. The two references are both database entries.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	espncricinfo.com	Career stats on player	Yes	No. Database entry	Yes	No
2	espncricinfo.com	Account of a match	Yes	No. Passing mention	Yes	No

Draftify as proposer. Unilateral draftification would be inappropriate after three years in article space. If significant coverage is not found in six months, we know where the bit bucket is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. 3 List A appearances were in Premier Trophy, which is not notable enough to presume coverage for a player per WP:OFFCRIC. RoboCric (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect My preference would be here to redirect, however List of Kalutara Physical Culture Club cricketers doesn't exist. The subject fails WP:GNG, and so without the redirect, delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom assessment. // Timothy :: talk 02:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list which has been suggested to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Heroes characters. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ando Masahashi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect. Zero real-world notability. Delete as per WP:NOTPLOT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, onel5969, that's just a sub-par nom. First "real world notability" is a non-sequitur: notability is based on coverage of a topic, so a fictional element that is covered as a fictional element via non-trivial mentions in independent reliable sources is notable. Second, the issue is a problem with notability for standalone coverage, as anyone with a search engine can see that this character existed, so there's no reason for deletion--rather than enforcing a redirect to a more carefully curated List of Heroes characters. Let's not start advocating things that aren't even policy-based just as a more extreme position from which one can fall back, shall we? Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as sources go, in Simmons' Investigating Heroes: Essays on Truth, Justice and Quality TV ISBN 978-0786459360, his name is mentioned on 23 separate pages. While I can only see the index and 2 trivial mentions in Google Books preview, I suspect that the whole enchilada would amount to non-trivial IRS coverage. But really, I'm getting a lot of trivial mentions, to include in JSTOR and NYT (each of which yield one), so I'm actually inclined to enforce the redirect unless someone else comes up with better focus on this character rather than as Hiro's friend/sidekick. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the person who un-did the redirect. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the page itself is kept, but when the redirect was made, no section for Ando was added to List of Heroes characters, which meant that there was essentially no information (not even a paragraph on a much larger list page) on this borderline-notable character. The act of "redirecting a previously-existing article to some other article that doesn't really contain useful information about that subject" is one of the more insidious ways to hard-core delete content from Wikipedia, and whether or not it was intentional, it left a noticeable gap in coverage. It's unimportant to me whether the page is kept or a few-paragraph section is made on the relevant list page, but I hope most reasonable people would agree that redirecting it to a page lacking a section on Ando is the worst of the three outcomes. onel5969 - I would also add that my interaction with you was largely negative, as you ignored the reason for undoing the redirect, cited a nonexistent AfD, and (mostly incorrectly) claimed that the character was already on the list page. These types of interactions with new people matter, and bad ones feed into the narrative that Wikipedia is unwelcoming to new people. 24.143.106.101 (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested seems fine. This isn't Superman, but one of many characters in the series. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless someone adds a reception section showing, well, notability. PS. I do fully support summarizing some stuff on the relevant list of characters, so I guess merge is likewise a valid outcome, maybe even better than redirect (but there's nothing stopping folks from getting content from a redirect, as long as there is no hard deletion of content, which I would not endorse). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect per all. It's always fine to make bold edits, but re-creating a page without providing WP:SIGCOV isn't really constructive. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. // Timothy :: talk 03:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The only "delete" comment is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Either a company meets our criteria for inclusion, or not. While it's true that GNG doesn't mandate the existence articles on any topic that qualifies, meeting GNG does mean the article can exist. If our criteria for inclusion are too permissive, then that is a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Notability to get the policy changed, not an isolated AFD discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Big Bear (food company)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Given the extremely short length of this article, and the fact that it had only three edits between 2012 and my addition of the AfD notice, it's entirely possible this might not be notable. I'm on the fence as to whether it IS notable or not, hence why I'm giving this an AfD instead of a PROD, but IMO, it's better safe to nominate this than sorry. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. As for my own view, the article definitely needs better sourcing, and on my first pass through Google there might be enough out there for to meet WP:GNG, but I haven't yet delved into it enough to justify a !vote either way at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I see enough sources to meet GNG here.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] I don't know how reliable these sites are though. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. This was the norm back in the day, we used to have many articles like this. The fact that it may pass WP:GNG doesn't mean it should exist. It is the same as creating an article about this company in Albania or any company for that matter. ▪︎ Some1 ^{talk} 05:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A food company that was in business for 122 years is quite likely notable. That doesn't mean sigcov is easy to find, though. I'm a bit on the fence. Valereee (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Big Bear as a company (which I believe to be the topic of this article) was formed in 2003 to take over brands being disposed of by Northern Foods.[12]. It's the factory that's been in operation for 122 years under different owners, not this company. Rupples (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As I said, it is pointless to have bunch of articles about some not-so-notable company. Some1 ^{talk} 12:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Snowmanonahoe. // Timothy :: talk 12:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burdett Motorsport[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable, cannot find WP:SIGCOV Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete echoing the nomination. Can’t find any indication of WP:SIGCOV and no record of notable results. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete NCORP fail. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W18DQ-D[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Various IPs have repeatedly overwritten the redirect to TV Red Puerto Rico with an article (that company used to own this station, but sold it), but the sourcing is very limited (only a RabbitEars entry that does not list any programming and says the station is off the air) — I suspect this does not meet the GNG. Since TV Red Puerto Rico no longer owns this station, a redirect there no longer seems valid — and barring some form of protection having anything at this title will only continue to lead to more unsourced/poorly-sourced IP edits. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Station has no schedule presence at all, the website doesn't have anything outside a default template (I can't find any evidence of the claimed Facebook or Roku TV channel), and the only hits for the station otherwise are its FCC presences and the usual assortment of bad Wikimirrors. Whatever the case, the station's history is only translating other stations and nothing else, and it's probably just carrying public domain filler to keep the lights on for the license. Nate • (chatter) 21:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond confirmation of existing, there's no sourcing for this. Wiki mirrors don't count for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly redirect). A post-2010 LPTV with a nondescript history in Puerto Rico, where sourcing is already a challenge. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There was a call sign change to WSTN-LD effective today. I note this for completeness and out of an abundance of caution; in and of itself it has no bearing as to the merits (or lack thereof) of retaining this article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Smend[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Germany. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Left 95[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From brief WP:BEFORE Googling in both English and Lithuanian, I could find only these two sources with passing mentions and that's it. –Vipz (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Lithuania. –Vipz (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No establishment of notability, fails GNG. Written in POV promotional language. The only link is to an archived versional of their official website, which is no longer active. Could have probably been WP:PROD'd. — Czello ^(music) 15:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Lion King 1½. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Weinberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested redirect. Nothing's changed since last AfD. To quote that nom, "Non-notable former minor performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect Not even mentioned in most of the articles on films he's had roles in. Exactly 1 secondary source relating to his acting career—younghollywood.com—it doesn't focus on him, and I can't find any more. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect as ATD or delete per previous AfD consensus. Mccapra (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and above. // Timothy :: talk 12:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Zech McPhearson#Personal life. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrick McPhearson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable athlete. Was drafted but never played. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Maryland. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesnt meet WP:NSPORT Nagol0929 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maryland Terrapins in the NFL draft per nom. A before search only shows routine coverage/stats and coverage related to a different Gerrick McPhearson. As a player selected in the NFL draft, his name is a reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 16:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also okay with Zech McPhearson#Personal life as a redirect target. Frank Anchor 01:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Best chance of finding significant coverage on him, if there is any, would be on Newspapers.com and from his college years. I may take a shot at it later. Alvaldi (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My search only found one piece of sigcov: [13]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now as an ATD - I didn't find any additional SIGCOV when searching. The target suggested by Frank Anchor works, although Zech McPhearson#Personal life is another possibility. Hatman31 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zech McPhearson#Personal life where the subject is mentioned, and tag as ((R from relative)). CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Freeway lid. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of structures built on top of freeways[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN; the topic does not appear to have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.

The article also appears to be entirely based on WP:OR, with the only sources provided being images, usually in Google Maps, that have been interpreted as structures built on top of freeways. BilledMammal (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—basic searches over a few minutes find various sources for these entries, several of which are cited in the appropriate linked articles already. I can only assume that I can find sources for all of them by the end of the day. Imzadi 1979 → 15:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That partially addresses the WP:V and WP:OR issue but it doesn't address the WP:N issue. BilledMammal (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if the topic of structures built on top of freeways is notable, not if the individual structures are verifiably on top of freeways. I haven't checked that just yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I myself, on my very way to this discussion, saw a structure that was not on top of a freeway. That being said, Delete. I'm sure the technical details of building like this would be of interest to engineers and architects, but as said above, this is not a notable topic for a list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After doing a basic check, I cannot find any coverage on structures on top of highways as a group. There are individual examples of note, but I do not see anything to justify this list. There is potentially a bit of overlap with Holdout (real estate), a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freeway lid. I am not going to suggest a merge because some of the list items here are already listed as examples there. –Fredddie ™ 16:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. But can you clarify why not a merge?

With respect to the WP:N issue, some of the references at Freeway lid look like they are addressing more than one example--they are talking about it more generally.

I also note that "coverage as a group" is described on Wikipedia:LISTN as an example of a justification, not as a necessary condition. Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a whole, Wikipedians are very good at listing every example to any given topic but very bad at making good lists. I would much prefer having a curated list with representative examples as is the case on Freeway lid now than an ever-expanding list tagged with ((Incomplete list)). –Fredddie ™ 00:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand and agree ... just to check my understanding, you want the number of examples to stay similar to the number at the Lid article, rather than growing to be more like the List of structures. Right? If so, I agree.

I also note that the list has the problem that the criteria are unclear. Would every building above a tunnel, or for that matter every lamp post above a tunnel, qualify? Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list for the sake of having a list of something. It is slso seriously incomplete: the example from Italy is trivial, but I've certainly eaten at similar structures in France and the UK. Athel cb (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See: Bridge restaurant Djflem (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freeway lid. This list invites examples of non-notable structures to be added. The main focus should be on the concept of the use of air rights over freeways, not the specific, often non-notable, uses of those air rights. V C 18:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freeway lid. An overview article of the concept is fine but a standalone list of examples is trivial. Dough4872 18:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Freeway lid, an topic which is supported by the list. Djflem (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate entries to Bridge restaurant. Djflem (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freeway lid, although a category could be another option. --Rs chen 7754 00:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freeway lid for now. The article has been around since 2006 so PRESERVE and CHEAP very much apply. Theoretically, this title could be resurrected as a "list of lists" but the current setup is way too broad, leading to nom's observation that the list does not exist elsewhere as such. gidonb (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freeway lid per above. // Timothy :: talk 12:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Dadeville shooting[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENTS. This appears to be a news story without any encyclopedic notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Alabama. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With 32 victims, this is the largest mass shooting in the US in 2023. The incident has achieved WP:SIGCOV. WWGB (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Received and still receiving national coverageCNN NPR USA TodayWashington Post, had a response by POTUS, seems to pass GNG and NEVENT. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t delete -Of course Alabama never matters, right? 2600:6C58:7300:569:5D03:AD2A:2C1A:4D8E (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We don't really care where it takes place. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The largest shooting in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. Coverage is significant and on-going since the shooting on the night of the 15th. It is not only front page news in the US, but also in the UK. For example BBC and Telegraph are on their main pages on the 17th as I'm writing this. With such in-depth international coverage, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (events) easily. --Mvqr (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems we have enough coverage in both national and international press. Boy I wish we didn't have to keep having articles about mass shootings though... Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because its very high number of victims makes it easily notable enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I propose deleting this discussion, anyone who thinks the article should be deleted is objectively wrong. It's already one of the bloodiest shootings of 2023 24.80.7.130 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Close as Keep, I reckon. BhamBoi (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reminder that there is no "death toll" argument for notability, which is no more than an appeal to WP:INTERESTING. All arguments related to death toll should be disregarded when closing. Also remember that WP:SIGCOV requires sustained coverage. Single-news-cycle articles should be deleted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't gonna be a single-news-cycle story buddy. It's part of a larger crisis in America around gun violence that's sadly evolving frequently. Take the L and end this interminable "debate". 24.80.7.130 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then the "larger crisis" should have an article. And it does. This is not that. Also, given your rather aggressive tone here and on my talk page, I'll remind you that Wikipedia has high standards about how to engage in discourse. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How much "sustained coverage" can you claim doesn't exist in the span of a few days? It's still on the front page of CNN.com and other news sites. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated based on the discussion and close at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Closed) Dadeville shooting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On that discussion it was deemed the article was not notable and not well written enough for WP's "front page". That is not to say it is not notable enough to have an article. WP has bazillions of articles that will never make it to the "front page", yet we don't delete those. I might agree that WP's bar for notability is sometimes too low, and that there are plenty of shootings, but this one gets wide coverage, including international coverage. It had a few articles on the newspaper I subscribe in Portugal. - Nabla (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how it doesn't pass NEVENT due to the existence of significant coverage and the greater context of gun violence in the U.S. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sourcing. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. In-depth, significant coverage. National and international sourcing. Time will time if the coverage is sustained, but this is hardly routine. Can't see how this is "without any encyclopedic notability". gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable current event with significant number of victims. Maribullah (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per all above, this is clearly notable. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep If notability was a concern, nominator should have waited a week or two to see how much coverage this receives. To me there is plenty already to justify an article. Thriley (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deadliest US shooting this year, so, sadly this must have an article. Essentially, per all above. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has the most victims, but the 2023 Monterey Park shooting has the highest death toll. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - As most users said above, there is a large number of casualties for both deceased and injured, and it also has had significant coverage from various agencies including ones outside the United States (i.e. BBC). I don't think a shooting of this scale should be wiped off the face of Wikipedia, however if for some reason it's deemed not "significant" Then might I suggest it being merged into the history section of the town itself. It's a relatively small place that isn't particularly well known for much else, so this event is undoubtedly important for this community and will likely be remembered by them more than the average american. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. - Nabla (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep. Disgusting this is even nominated. Don't Black lives matter in Amerika? This is covered all over the world, including Germany: [14] in Süddeutsche Zeitung and [15] in Deutsche Welle, [16] in ZDF, [17] in Bild, as well as many others. 2A02:3033:6D1:8F77:D9F4:7DFE:B335:B304 (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete Why is this even nominated? There are 32 victims, making it the worst mass shooting in 2023. Ridiculous. Keep. 194.193.130.52 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. FFS!!! Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep (slow, not snow) per my comment above. Let anyone thinking it should be deleted (or not) to make their point.
Speedy keep: It's snowing in here, and for good reason. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MVQR, this is a notable event. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep Agree with the points raised above, plus the fact that this deletion nom does not have any chance of succeedingBremps! 14:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nominator. I maintain that there is a disconnect between WP:Notability (events) and the community, but this has clearly run its course. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Italian School of Algiers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources provided are its own website. The Italian version of this article and searches by its Italian name don't yield much. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Hallelujah Here Below. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Stop Now[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and WP:NSONG. The subject is the single, only one source is about the subject, the rest are about albums, tours, the group, which mention or list the the subject - the single; Sources are not IS RS for the subject - the single. Source eval:

Apple Music	1. "Won't Stop Now - Single by Elevation Worship on Apple Music". Apple Music. United States. Apple Inc. August 3, 2018. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
SongSelect	Chords, Lyrics and Sheet Music \| SongSelect®". SongSelect. CCLI. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
Promo for album and tour, not SIGCOV about the subject	3. ^ Longs, Herb (August 4, 2018). "Elevation Worship Unveils 'Hallelujah Here Below' Album & Tour". The Christian Beat. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
Promo for album and tour, not SIGCOV about the subject	4. ^ Yap, Timothy (August 5, 2018). "Elevation Worship Announces the Release of New Album & Tour : News : JubileeCast". The Christian Beat. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
Promo	Freeccm.com". NewReleaseToday. NRT Media, Inc. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
Promo about a project, not SIGCOV about the subject	6. ^ Longs, Herb (April 13, 2019). "Elevation Worship Releases New Project 'Paradoxology'". The Christian Beat. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
MultiTracks	7. ^ "Won't Stop Now by Elevation Worship". MultiTracks. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
Youtube, Primary	Live \| Elevation Worship - YouTube". YouTube. YouTube, LLC. August 3, 2018. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
Official Music video, Primary	Official Music Video \| Elevation Worship - YouTube". YouTube. YouTube, LLC. April 15, 2019. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
Official Music video, Spanish version, Primary	Spanish \| Video Oficial Con Letras \| Elevation Worship - YouTube". YouTube. YouTube, LLC. July 19, 2019. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
Billboard chart history for the group, not SIGCOV about the subject	11. ^ "Elevation Worship Chart History (Hot Christian Songs)". Billboard. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
Billboard chart, mentioned in list, not SIGCOV about the subject	Billboard". Billboard. Retrieved February 8, 2021.

BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject (the single) directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think charting on the Christian song chart in Billboard would be enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hallelujah Here Below: Agree with nominator's ref assessment, didn't find any other coverage, and disagree with Oaktree because the charting is not very impressive and not enough to convince me of notability on its own. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hallelujah Here Below: The above evaluation of the existing sources is correct. I cannot find any significant coverage and its record of charting does not merit notability. Rublamb (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No objection to consensus redirect. // Timothy :: talk 12:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Charting does not excuse a song from having to meet reliable sourcing requirements, per WP:NSONG. Agree with source evaluation above; GNG not met. WJ94 (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waléra Kanischtscheff[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article written by the subject with no sources. Entirely unsourced blps are a problem, even for people who are not notable Very Average Editor (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to be a notable actor. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond credits for the various episodes, I can't see coverage for this person in RS Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE are promo, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 13:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 11:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marco V[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He is claimed to be one of the most important trance musicians, but I'm unable to find much coverage on him. I found two sources relating to his 20/20 project, but that's it. Because of the limited scope of information I found in reliable sources, I believe this article fails WP:GNG. Mori Calliope fan talk 06:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mori Calliope fan talk 06:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the German wikipedia article here shows charting singles and albums. There is a brief AllMusic bio here but more is needed, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As in 2004, DJ Mag ranked him as the 16th top DJ in the world, and he remained in top 50 annually until 2009. DJ Mag is the most respected ranking for deejays. As an EDM fan I have heard of him before, but don't know his music. There are bunch of bios on many respected EDM sites about him. Check: Beatport, Insomniac (major EDM promoters), Resident Advisor, ALLMUSIC. And here are some articles meathchronicle.ie, Colorising, Digital DJ Hub, Crossfadr, Deep House Amsterdam, Rave Jungle, We Rave You.Pershkoviski (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems enough coverage as given above to just pass the notability. Being the top DJ as listed would be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG per sources listed by User:Pershkoviski; several of these now added to the article. Also meets WP:MUSICBIO#2: three singles top 40 hits in Dutch national charts and three singles in UK national charts. ResonantDis_tortion 19:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Less Unless (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maelyn Jarmon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage, both here and about the internet, focuses solely on her part on The Voice (American season 16). Aside from some less-than-impressive charting singles, most of which also come from her time on the show, I don't see independent notability at this time. Merge/redirect to the season page. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wait for You (Maelyn Jarmon song). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Texas. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She charted #6 on the Digital chart, that's not nothing. One Other single charted in the top 20 on the same chart, that's notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the digital chart, sure, but with zero placements on the Hot 100 that it feeds into. It's not nothing but I'm not convinced it's much of something, and without much else to match it, I still don't see the keep. Besides, that's info that can still be merged easily. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that she got #6, it doesn't mater what you think will happen after said occasion. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think her notability is recognizable with chart topping singles. The article mentions noteworthy statistics that a redirect could not. 2603:9001:1B02:FB65:1182:B2D5:A51C:9565 (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- everything said in here and the article points towards keeping it. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Charts on the US Digital Song Sales make this eligible for WP:MUSICBIO #2. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis E. Hollander Jr.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was rejected, so here we are at AfD. The article is poorly written because it lacks sufficient reliable sources independent of the subject. As a result it reads like a CV/resumé combined with a poor high school essay. It's painful to read and should be put out of its misery unless it can be re-written using sufficient RS. NSH001 (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and Oregon. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Content regarding his scientific work and publications could support notability, if references can be provided. BD2412 T 17:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

seems a fairly clear Keep to me. AfD can delete either if the topic is not notable, or if the article is so badly written it would be better to start back from nothing. In this case the subject is probably notable as an academic, possibly as an ancient athlete, certainly as a combination of both. The article is dreadfully formatted, but the solution to that is not TNT, or AfD: it's to get typing and reformat it. Elemimele (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note Wikipedia's policy "Unsourced content is subject to removal" Most of this article is unsourced content (and therefore subject to removal, aka deletion). If not a total deletion, remove the sections with no sources. Unsourced content is either a hoax, not notable, or just someone didn't put in the effort to source it. If the third, then fix it. If the first two, then delete. Starship 24 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 12:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i don't see enough coverage on this. Pershkoviski (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article makes a lot of uncited claims, and being in the Guinness Book of Records doesn't confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 12:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kilasu Ostermeyer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as no SIGCOV found in the article and the web. Fails NBAD too. Timothytyy (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, Thailand, and Germany. Timothytyy (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this LN piece might be enough to add a sentence or two to the article but isn't a GNG pass on its own. If more sources can be found, then we could build something here. If not, then I'd agree with the nominator and we need to delete this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two time medalist at the European Mixed Team Championships, the highest level tournament in Badminton Europe Confederation. Also, a medalist in European Women's team championship, a continental equivalent of Uber Cup. zoglophie 15:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoglophie Notability is based on coverage, not by achievements. It does not even pass NBAD. No coverage at all online. An article which fails GNG, SNG and SIGCOV at the same time should definitely be deleted. Timothytyy (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her achievements are not low. Her article should be kept based on her achievements alone. And mind you, WP:NBAD doesn't include World Championship, Sudirman Cup, Continental Championship etc. but it does not make them a non notable tournament at any bounds. It's laughable when someone is saying that. Winning medals in those tournaments alone should be more than enough. zoglophie 04:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not based on achievements, it is based on coverage. I am not saying the subject is a weak player, I am saying it is not notable because it just doesn't pass GNG. If you don't understand the guideline you can read WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO so that you can understand what notability is. Timothytyy (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1, 2. Stvbastian (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for doing research, after considering the two sources provided by you and the sources provided by Spiderone, I decide that I will withdraw this AFD after you add the sources on the page. Timothytyy (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbat-Opera[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Thin article that has lacked any sources for over a decade on a topic that, from searching, seems to lack notability. Itsfini (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Itsfini (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to BoJack Horseman (season 1). History is under the redirect if consensus emerges to merge any. Star Mississippi 12:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoës and Zeldas[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Tagged for notability since 2019.

PROD removed with "de-prod, adding 1 source, coming back to this later currently travelling" about a month ago. Nothing signifigant added since then. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, target BoJack Horseman (season 1) surely. Do we need to be here for this? Hiding T 09:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to BoJack Horseman (season 1), fails GNG, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 12:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BoJack Horseman (season 1), where the episode is mentioned. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lensa Indonesia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Lots of promo, database listings.

Bringing it to AfD instead of CSD or PROD because of past contested nominations. // Timothy :: talk 12:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet inclusion criteria for an encyclopedia.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; promotional and fails WP:GNG. ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 19:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lapor Polisi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Lots of promo, database listings.

Bringing it to AfD instead of CSD or PROD because of contested deletions in this area. // Timothy :: talk 12:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet inclusion criteria for an encyclopedia. (Note-- I have the creator's talk page watch listed from UTRS encounter.)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Update[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Lots of promo, database listings.

Bringing it to AfD only because of the number of previously contested CSDs and PRODs. // Timothy :: talk 12:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanos[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "Hispanos" seems to be rarely used in scholarship dealing with the population this article is about - and from what I can tell none of the sources this article cites establish notability. The Census citation's link no longer works, but from what I can tell the US Census Bureau does not recognize "Hispano" or anything similar as a cohesive ancestry or ethnic group (a code list from 2010, pages 295-296, I've found doesn't use the term at all). "The Spanish Surname Criterion" defines "Hispano" as equivalent to the modern category "Hispanic and Latino Americans" - although the "native Spanish Americans" it mentions seem to be the descendants of Spanish-speaking settlers in the Southwest this article claims to describe. The two sources with archived links are both about Hispanos of New Mexico specifically, and the Alexander B. King source is just about historical Californios. So, none of this article's sources actually establish that the term "Hispanos" is widely used to refer to the descendants of early Spanish and Mexican settlers in the American Southwest as a whole.

Additionally, this article's exact scope is unclear. The lead sentence mentions "independent Mexico" but the article also mentions Louisiana Isleños.

Speaking of scope, I'm not sure the article's subject, descendants of Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the territories Mexico ceded to the US in 1848, actually do constitute a meaningful ethnic or cultural group - the sources cited don't establish this.

It's also noteworthy that several people in this article's talk page have previously objected to its existence and that most of the article's content is unsourced. Erinius (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Erinius (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable subgroup of latinos in the United States, very unclear scope, fails GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ouko[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability expressed or sources available NortonAngo (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Star Mississippi 12:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Soina[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo CV with no notability expressed or sources available. NortonAngo (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passionate environmentalist doesn't get you a wikipedia article. I can't find sources that talk about her at length. Delete for lack of sourcing and the flowery language used. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs work, but the subject is notable. Soina is discussed in Kenyan media (often with regard to her activism,1 2 3 4, affair with a comedian 5 6, and political campaign 7 8 9). She is also featured on sites focused on youth-driven climate change advocacy 10, 11 12, including PBS and Reuters. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have added another couple of newspaper articles about her and her book: seems to have plenty of coverage in RS. PamD 07:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that more reliable sources have been added. Article is clearly in a better shape than it was before. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn‎ . Evidence suggests it passes GNG due to the Okazu source, which, while self-published, is from a provable expert whose work has received a number of scholarly citations. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Blossoms[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE search only found a single review from Hardcore Gamer and a paragraph from PCGamesN. Everything else is rather trivial, or from somewhere that isn't vetted as reliable. The reception is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel to make it SEEM notable, but the sources don't support that. (See WP:SIGCOV) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two Hardcore Gamer, first TheGamer, and PCGamesN sources establish GNG. You may want to call most of the other sources "trivial", but I would say they are simply supplemental sources that help cite sentences in the article that if left unsourced would be silly and unhelpful.

The only source that isn't currently vetted as reliable as per WP:VG/RS is the Inverse one but that source is listed as having inconclusive discussions on that issue. The two discussions lead me to believe that it should be treated as at least situationally reliable. I would lean to voting reliable if a new discussion on it was added to WP:VG/RS.

This article existed for about 15 hours before being tagged with an AFD and I'm not necessarily anti-deletion but I don't see how these taggings help. The subject is not egregiously or blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia, and it's honestly akin to a stub article right now. Not letting it have a moment to breathe, as I planned to look for some more sources in addition to the ones I already found, is not entirely constructive in my opinion. Soulbust (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheGamer is a situational source in WP:VG/S - it's not applicable to establish notability due to its notoriety as a content mill.

I should also point you directly to WP:GNG, where it says, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." You can't use two Hardcore Gamer sources to count towards the requirement of multiple sources.

Regardless of whether the article is under construction, you made it in main space rather than as a draft, which seems to indicate that you believe it can stand on its own in its current state. Still, my own search didn't find anything so I find it fairly unlikely they exist at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that Highway Blossoms gets a very brief shout-out in the Inverse article; which gives slightly more opinions about the studio's later games though I'm not sure I'd call any one game in the article significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheGamer is situationally reliable yes. But its usage in this article is still suitable as both references sourced by TheGamer are after August 2020 - as per WP:VG/RS, "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable."

If you want to count the Hardcore Gamer as one source, that's fine fine. It still establishes GNG, along with the PCGamesN source.

Probably all articles can be called "under construction", so that's not really my main point. But this article was just made, and especially in that case, I would ask does deletion of this article help, at least this soon? Soulbust (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG: for significant coverage, the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Highway Blossoms has about the same amount of coverage in Inverse that it does in PCGamesN. Its coverage in the former is direct and in detail, satisfying GNG, and furthermore offers sourcing on a pretty noteworthy pieces of information, namely why the writer sought to work on the game, and that the game's reception inspired him to found the studio. I would say this constitutes as helping establish notability. Soulbust (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am normally pretty lenient on games that will probably be notable at some point. This is not such a case, as Highway Blossoms is a 2016 game - it's unlikely to garner any further RS mentions, especially with the studio moving on to later and greater things. So, WP:ITSHARMLESS is not really an argument here.

The portion of The Inverse article that is about the game is as follows: Josh Kaplan’s first game, Highway Blossoms, sees a young girl named Amber gradually fall in love with her friend Marina in the American Southwest. Only a few years out of high school himself at the time, Kaplan wanted to see more yuri visual novels (a subgenre that focuses on female romantic relationships) in the space. So he co-wrote his own. This is not significant. This is hardly even trivial. And it offers no opinion from the article's writer. There is no way this counts towards notability. Even if we did consider TheGamer article reliable, it's also a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Inverse source also includes "In 2016, there weren't a whole lot of yuri visual novels available in English, especially on Steam, and the game ended up being unexpectedly successful,” Kaplan tells Inverse. “It found an audience of primarily LGBT readers who appreciated what they felt was a more realistic approach to same-sex relationships." Inspired by the response to Highway Blossoms, Kaplan founded Studio Élan.

This and the portion you quoted in your reply is short coverage sure, but not trivial. WP:TRIVIAL also states "On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view." That last sentence is important, because the sources provided are valid. The PCGamesN and Hardcore Gamer sourcing establishes GNG. For TheGamer, WP:VG/RS is pretty clear that the source is considered reliable post-August 2020, so there is no "even if we did consider TheGamer article reliable" that applies here, as you stated. The only thing WP:VG/RS advises against is using it to demonstrate notability. But since, the source is not a trivial mention, it adds as suitable reliable sourcing that helps this article follow the spirit and the letter of the guideline, which is simply to make sure there is enough content to write about from a neutral POV. Soulbust (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Starship 24 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC) — Starship 24 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Starship SN20 (talk · contribs). [reply]

Keep: Draftify/Userfy: Per the discussion below, I concede that the sources necessary to prove notability for an article on the game simply aren't there yet. However, I still feel that the article should be kept in draftspace or userspace, if for no other reason than I'd like to try to improve it myself.
In addition to the Hardcore Gamer and PCGamesN posts, which seem to have consensus as counting towards GNG, I've also found sources from Noisy Pixel ([18]), Gayming Magazine ([[19]), Anime News Network ([20]), and Erica Friedman/Yuricon ([21], [22]), the latter two of which are described in WP:A&M/RS as situationally reliable for contexts such as these.
If this article is still deleted anyway, I'd like to suggest that it be retained as a draft, either in draftspace or in userspace. Even if this topic never becomes independently notable, I believe there's a pretty good chance that Studio Elan as a whole may be at some point worthy of a standalone article (if they aren't already), in which case the contents and sources of this article would likely be worth keeping around to merge into that article. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 15:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear the Anime News Network post is not WP:SIGCOV. The Yuricon review is unreliable per WP:BLOG, which is a Wikipedia policy that can't be overridden by someone's opinion from 2009. I don't believe Erica Friedman's considered a subject matter expert whose work has appeared in WP:RS - the only evidence shown is that she made a listicle once for About.com, which is a ridiculously low bar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Studio Elan is also not even close to being independently notable yet. In Google results they're neck and neck with a random beauty studio somewhere. Heart of the Woods is the only encyclopedic output thus far, since it got reviews from Siliconera, Digitally Downloaded and Rock Paper Shotgun, all reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's interesting. I took a look at the RS/N discussion, and concede that the grounds upon which Erica Friedman was deemed a reliable individual for the subject are pretty flimsy, apart from being that she's in charge of a publishing house, which I guess doesn't mean anything- but she has apparently written a book (published by a different publishing house) and been described by an expert in this press release than ANN reposted here. She did also write an article for WP:ANIFEM in 2019, and is cited in this one as a "Yuri scholar," so, all that considered, that might make her a reliable individual. This is a discussion out of scope of this AfD, so I'll probably be taking it to a different talk page.
I do concede, however, that even if she would be good enough to cite as an opinion on the game if it were proved notable, it's not good enough by itself- so, as such, I think I'm going to change my vote to drafity. (I still think the article should be draftified, if for no other reason than I'd like to at least have the opportunity to workshop it myself.) silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 18:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Yuri scholar" is obviously tongue-in-cheek, I don't see evidence of her being a literal scholar. She seems like your standard blogger to me, rather than an academic source, nor is the analysis the slightest bit academic. Feel free to attempt to find more sources, but you can't make them pop out of thin air where there are none. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if we don't find any sources, or no other editors agree with me (like I said, I'm looking into it and intend to open a discussion about it elsewhere), then I'll happily admit that I was wrong and she's not reliable. I'm not trying to start a fight about it or fabricate anything. But like I said, I'm pretty sure this is out of scope for this AfD. I'll likely be opening a talk about this here and/or at RS/N, and if/when I do, I'm sure your comments will be welcomed. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 19:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4: Thank you for contributions and help with this article. I had noticed the Gayming, Noisy Pixel, and Anime News Network sources before but refrained from including/using them because the former two aren't listed at VG:RS at all, though we should probably fix that and start a discussion on whether they should be listed as reliable or not. The latter as well as Okazu didn't really process for me when making the article either but if they are deemed suitable for this article then that's great.

I've started a very rough draft for Studio Élan, which I think can stand on its own and the merging of this into that (or perhaps vice versa akin to how Team Cherry is currently a redirect into Hollow Knight) would be preferable than the straight up deletion of this article, though I still maintain Keeping this would be the most preferable option. Soulbust (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please be cognizant of the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources because you seem to be assuming interviews count towards notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming that. Again the draft page for the studio is currently very rough. Soulbust (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One discussion we probably could be having is if the sources that WP:ANIME considers reliable and the sources that WP:VG considers reliable should be coordinated in some fashion. While there is a clear distinction between more anime focused sources and more video game focused sources, there is some natural overlap between them as anime and video games are interests with many of the same demographics (you'll find anime reviews on IGN just as soon as you'll find game reviews on ANN). There is also overlap in subject matter as well, as there are anime-based/inspired video games, video game inspired anime, and visual novels, which is something that apparently was considered with the visual novels taskforce jointly formed between the two at one point- although that appears to be inactive.
I would say, in general, that the two different lists of sources for both are pretty comparable, although obviously the selection of video game-focused sources is much larger. I don't know. Again, out of scope of this AfD, but likely still worth thinking about later. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 01:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...she has published in an academic journal, FYI. (Granted, a section under editorial but not peer review...but with 10 citations!) Sandtalon (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have learned that yuri scholar is actually a real thing. Touche.

Still, I have had sources written by Derek Yu, arguably a massively more prominent figure in the gaming scene, shot down simply because they were in an unreliable source, so I am dubious that simply because she had written a scholarly work in the past, anything self-published by her is reliable. If so that would be a big deviation from how I assumed reliable sources work. If that is the case, I'd err on the side of the game being notable, but I am not sure others would agree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did open that discussion on the anime project sources list talk page. The other two editors who commented thus far seem to agree that she's usable for this type of context, although even still, that doesn't necessarily mean she counts towards meeting GNG. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 07:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Video games, and Visual arts. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 15:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs input by more, er, yuri scholars about whether the sourcing is sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm no scholar of this particular "thing", but the mentions seem trivial. We'd need more native-language sourcing to see how it's talked about there. I have no desire to fall down this rabbit hole myself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is native language; this visual novel was produced in English (and to my knowledge has no Japanese translation, though there might be sources in the two other languages it does have translations in). It seems unlikely that there are more sources than this, so I think I still support a draftify or maybe a redirect to Heart of the Woods. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 16:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to google it, especially at work. Still leaning !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why you say the mentions seem trivial, to maybe help out with that in future editing of this article.

As mentioned above, I don't think the TheGamer, Hardcore Gamer, PCGamesN, or Inverse sources are trivial mentions. The Okazu and Gayming Magazine sources also fall under non-trivial coverage. Sure, there are some sources that are just a sentence or two, but those are okay for inclusion since they are supplemental sources that are useful for verification. But at any rate, some clarification on why you say the mentions seem trivial would perhaps help me edit this. Thanks, Soulbust (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soulbust: There's only a single instance of WP:SIGCOV and that is Hardcore Gamer's review. PCGamesN has a grand total of 4 sentences, 2 of which are opinion. Inverse has, like, a single sentence mention, and TheGamer is situational and can't be used for notability. As for Okazu and Gayming Magazine, there's no evidence they're WP:RS. WP:GNG requires multiple significant sources.

@Oaktree b: The game has slight optional adult content, but it's more romance fiction than an erotic game, so I don't think you have to be concerned about going down a "rabbit hole". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said my piece about Okazu and there has since been a more recent discussion about that, so I won't repeat myself on that front. However, Gayming Magazine does appear to have some kind of editorial control, given that they list an Editor-in-Chief for the publication on their parent company's "About" page, and apparently the company's publications have been covered or referenced by several known RSes. Certainly not conclusive evidence of anything, but not nothing either. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 06:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming Gayming is definitively notable without a shadow of a doubt, it's not SIGCOV either, just an announcement posting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already commented on the Inverse and TheGamer sourcing above. As for PCGamesN, in your nomination of this article for deletion, you excluded the source from the "Everything else" that is "rather trivial". However, if you changed your mind on that source, the WP:SIGCOV guideline states: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

So, I don't know why there is a need to zero in on "a grand total of 4 sentences, 2 of which are opinion". Those 4 sentences address the topic directly. I would argue in detail (i.e. mentioning game aspects like its soundtrack and visuals, is detail to me). I will say that's perhaps subjective, and maybe you think that isn't enough detail. But I would say that because the guideline doesn't mention any explicit length requirement (and only that we wouldn't have to use a source in a way where original research is need to extract content), that this is valid as detail. And it simply isn't trivial, in my opinion, since it discusses concrete things about aspects of the game.

More importantly: In the article, the PCGamesN source is not used in an original research manner; it is used for citing an opinion from an outlet listed as reliable, and it's used aptly in the reception section.

Regardless of all that, this article still has the Hardcore Gamer sourcing, as well as the Okazu and Gayming source that look reliable to me. Like mentioned elsewhere in this AfD, discussion on Okazu has been linked. And we would just need some further formal discussion for the latter at VG:RS perhaps, but yeah I'd agree with silvia's points on Gayming. And we also have a lot of supplemental sourcing present here to help flesh the article out. TheGamer source in particular being a non-trivial RS coverage is really helpful in regards to this. There is plainly enough here to write about in a way that presents the information in a neutral, reliably sourced manner and doesn't go off on original research tangents. Soulbust (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Hardcore Gamer and Rock Paper Shotgun sources seem to be enough, and there are more, less helpful sources. Seems very notable to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: I am not sure which source you mean - if you are referring to "The 10 Best Visual Novels on PC", Highway Blossoms is not actually listed as one of those 10 VNs. It is only mentioned in the "What else should I be playing if I like this?" section in a single sentence, "If you want to stick with acclaimed romantic dramas, you'll find the right mix of sweetness and sentiment in If My Heart Had Wings or Highway Blossoms." This is trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Arthur Bethell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been twice rejected at AFC - rightly in my view - but moved by its creator into mainspace. I think it needs to go back to draft for further work. Too much reliance on primary sources, long sections of unsourced material, and speculation. What is lacking is depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, India, and United Kingdom. Mccapra (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to pass AUTHOR. I did a newspaper search at the LOC from 1870 to 1915. His name never turns up. I'd expect some kind of mention of his books. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expected this to be a delete, but it's probably not, I think he's a keep. That Oaktree b didn't find his books on searching for his real name might be because he published under the pseudonym "Pousse Cailloux", as the article says, and also using merely his initials with no name. He and his books do get mentions by others, e.g. an article in the Journal of Asian Studies by Carrington[23], and he's quoted here[24]. I find his books still widely on sale in the second hand market, which implies that they sold well in his day; I found multiple copies of Jungle Tales and Garden of the Hesperides available for sale everywhere from the UK to New Zealand. I suspect he was a sufficient author in his day to pass. The article could do with some work; some parts of it are rather interesting original research and include speculation that isn't appropriate in WP; for example, we should not make the connection between the date of his house being bombed and the death of his wife, that should be done elsewhere and then reported here. Elemimele (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Pousse Cailloux" brings up an article about the French 75 pounder gun in newspapers from 1916. Mentions him briefly [25] still not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found two of his books in LOC - 'His Majesty's Shirt-sleeves' 1930, and 'Tales from the Outposts' 1932. Maybe the search window (from 1870 to 1915) was too narrow ? Charles.bowyer (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NB I used his real name - Leonard Arthur Bethell Charles.bowyer (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. The article in its current state doesn't provide evidence of notability, and I was unable to find any significant coverage online. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that LOC (Library of Congress - I assume) is the best place to look for him. British Library (Asian section) is better - there you will find his letters, in the manuscript section (restricted section in fact), his books, and other references. Some parts of my article can be easily changed, but the problem area is 'notability'. I believe him to be notable - from the books he published - but trying to match Wikipedia's standard measures has been a struggle. Apart from the British Library entries, I can say that the authors he worked with on 'Tales from the Outposts' include significant national and literary figures - I count 19 Wikipedia entries among them. (See article). Charles.bowyer (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a search in American newspapers, so he might not have gotten much readership in the US. I have a few Canuck newspaper archives I use, I'll try there later. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::Algeria is hard to source and almost impossible in English. The French article is longer, but not all that much help. It does say that the Algerian were there with armored vehicles. I could, actually, conceive of such a battle being ignored since Algeria would have been newly independent and probably wasn't expected to stand chance against Israel. That doesn't mean that that's what happened though. As far as the author goes, he was a wartime general who saw action in this war. How is that not notable. I think you must be getting that assessment by looking for book reviews or something. I also strongly suggest checking in Arabic. Hth Elinruby (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)<--moving thisto the discussion about the battle in the Yom Kippur War. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: I think your comment was intended for another deletion discussion. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes my mistake. will move it shortly.Thanks for the good catch. Elinruby (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be useful to add some background – because a number of people have asked me the question, why am I interested in Bethell.? Over the years, I have read widely – some books stay with you, some don’t. Bethell has stayed. Not my top author, but at number 15 in my top 30. Virtually all the others in the top 30 are well-known and respected authors and all except 2 have articles on Wikipedia. Bethell is one of the two, of course. His books are known but there is nothing about the person. It was suggested it was time something was put up about him. It was further suggested that I should be the person to do this! So here I am.

PS can someone tell me the correct way of putting a comment on this stream? at the moment I’m using text edit and it doesn’t produce all the features. Charles.bowyer (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the large number of sources in the article, it would be helpful if someone could identify the WP:THREE best sources here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Mullaly, B. R. (1957). Bugle and Kukri: The Story of the 10th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons. pp. 146–147. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "It was commanded throughout by Major L. A. Bethell, O.B.E., who had come to the Regiment from the 8th Gurkhas when he was posted to the 2nd Battalion as a double-company officer on its formation in 1908. He had been with the Assam Military Police for a number of years. Bethell was a strange and in some ways eccentric character, and many stories were told about him and his unorthodox disciplinary methods, but there was never any criticism of his work as the Depot Commander throughout the war, and the 1st Battalion owed him a deep debt of gratitude for the fine drafts he sent it. He never lost sight of the one essential—that the depot existed for the sole purpose of maintaining the Battalion in the field by sending it the best trained material possible in the time available—and he also showed unusual breadth of vision in the great care he took to safe-guard the health and happiness of the families of the men on service. The Indian Army system proved to be antiquated and unsuited to the demands of modern war, and Bethell summed the situation up well when he wrote: ..."
  The book further notes: "Bethell profited from the experience of Kitchener's Army in England, and applied the same methods as far as they were applicable to the special conditions of the Indian Army."
2. Tredrey, F. D. (1954). The House of Blackwood, 1804–1954: The History of a Publishing Firm. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons. pp. 216, 221. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 216: "D. S. Meldrum had left the London Office before the war, and from 1920 to 1939 James Blackwood was helped by Lieut. Colonel L. A. Bethell, who wrote in 'Maga' as "Pousse Cailloux" or "Forepoint Severn," and who edited the most successful twelve-volume series of stories collected from the Magazine, "Tales from the Outposts."
  The book notes on page 221: "L. A. Bethell had left for work on armament production, and many of the staffs from George Street and Paternoster Row had gone into the Forces."
3. "Blackwoods' Books". The Bookman. December 1930. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The advertisement notes:
  
  His Majesty's Shirt-Sleeves. By Pousse Cailloux.
  "Deserves the publishers' description of 'epic,' and apart from the element in it, it has a value far beyond that of mere entertainment." —Scotsman
  "Can be heartily recommended." —Graphic
  "A remarkably fine book." —Morning Post
4. Macdonell, Ronald; Macaulay, Marcus (1960). A History Of The Fourth Prince Of Wales's Own Gurkha Rifles (1857–1937) Volume II. India: The Army Press. pp. 53, 55, 164, 172. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 53: "During the years 1923–25, while the 1st Battalion was helping to keep the peace around its "home," the 2nd Battalion, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel L. A. Bethell, was farther afield doing a tour of duty in the Khyber. The period proved an uneventful one."
  The book notes on page 55: "In May 1924, Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel A. M. Mills, D. S. O., who was later to become Colonel of the Regiment, joined the battalion as 2nd in command. He took over officiating command when Colonel Bethell was invalided home in August of the same year."
  The book notes on 164: "271. BETHELL, Major LEONARD ARTHUR. Joined the 2nd Battalion as permanent Commandant from the 1/10th Gurkhas in September 1929, Commanded the Battalion until August 1925. Left the Battalion, on transfer to the 2/10th Gurkhas as Permanent Commandant, in February 1926. O.B.E."
  The book notes on page 172: "Rank attained up to 1937: Lieut.-Colonel. Name: L. A. Bethell, O.B.E. Tenure of command: (2nd Bn.) 1922–1926."
5. Zarif (1933). "Two Months Leave". The Cavalry Journal. 23. The Royal United Service Institution: 80–81. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The journal notes on 80: "Some months ago, I think it was in the July, 1931, number of "Blackwood's Magazine," an article entitled "Experiments in the Primitive," appeared written under the nom-de-plume of Forepoint Severn. This was an excellent article, covering entirely new ground, in which the author showed, for the first time, probably, in the history of shikar, that there is a definite peculiar influence which man exerts over animals. There is some peculiar form of mental "telepathy" which, if a man sits waiting patiently, murder in his heart, to shoot an animal, seems to warn that animal, who probably never appears. How far that influence can act, and to what range, has not yet been discovered; but that such an influence is present is coming to be more and more universally recognized."
  The book notes on page 81: "Anyhow, whatever theories people may have about this, we do all of us owe a debt of gratitude to "Forepoint Severn" for his courage in being the first to bring to light what must, after all, have seemed at first sight to be a crazy theory."
6. "The Garden of the Hesperides". The Bulletin. 1936-12-30. p. 9. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via National Library of Australia.
  The article notes: "The Garden of the Hesperides: Forepoint Severn (Blackwood; 7s. 6d.). Recollections of travel and. military and sporting life by a retired colonel. Style friendly and spirited, but author inclined to forget that what interests him personally may have little general appeal-e.g., the inclusion of a treatise on apple culture in England, the author's present occupation."
7. Champion, F. W. (1933). The Jungle in Sunlight and Shadow. London: Chatto & Windus. p. 197. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: ""Forepoint Severn" gives another example of the effect of thought-waves when he was shooting Ammon. He had been watching some of these magnificent wild sheep at rather long range for hours on end waiting for a chance to shoot. At long last he decided to risk the shot, and, simultaneously with his decision, the three Ammon, which had paid no attention to him all day, jumped to their feet, fully alert, even though he had not made the slightest sound or movement. He then states that the Ammon must have instantly become aware of his intention to shoot by means of thought-waves giving them warning of danger."
8. ""His Majesty's Shirt Sleeves," by Pousse Cailloux". Western Morning News. 1931-02-05. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""His Majesty's Shirt Sleeves," by Pousse Cailloux. Here is a record, obviously based upon fact, of the service rendered by British officers and native troops on the North-East frontier of India. Told with humour, it gives an insight of the price at which security and order are brought in difficult country. (Wm. Blackwood and Sons, Ltd. 7s. 6d.)"
9. H. B. (1930-10-10). "His Majesty's Shirt Sleeves". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Be his pen-name what the author will, his stories are as English as cricket, and as real. Fiction is his thin veneer over descriptions of the life on the Frontier of white men, Turkos, Tibetans, Pathans, and once at least the pretence of fiction is altogether dropped, and in "A Footnote" we have, with Younghusband as hero and with high praise for mules, direct narrative of a transport officer's experi-ences of the expedition to Lhasa. A woman is present in one story, white heroine of a gruesome tale, sleeping with her husband's corpse till the superstitious bearers brought it, not knowing what they bore, ..."
10. "Companions for the Bookshelf: A Varied Choice of Fiction". Western Daily Press. 1938-12-28. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Eastward, above and beyond the frozen Himalayan heights lay China, potential invader. At home, uneasy Government watching over India. Was the icy barrier inviolable? Was there a way through? Years before, a man said there was, that he had seen it; but he was dead. With his Gurkhas and load carriers, provisioned for many weeks, Forepoint Severn sets out to find the answer. Drummond, officer of pioneers, soldier and explorer, once a noted member of the force that Younghusband had taken to Lhasa, on leave in Scotland, having heard of the quest, takes train to Peking and disappears into the blue. "Look out for me." he writes. Such is the theme of "The Blind Road" by Forepoint Severn (8s 6d, Blackwood), a truly amazing narrative, essentially a man's book, and one that will stir the blood."
11. Whitton, F. E. (1939-07-23). "The Other Frontier". The Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Until this book of Forepoint Severn's the North East Frontier has lacked its Herodotus and Xenophon, its Stevenson and Verne. Now we have a man's tale which for vivid incident and descriptive power is likely to be long without a rival. On to his personal knowledge of the grim borderland north of Assam the author has grafted a thrilling and fascinating tale."
12. ""The Bat Artist". Strange Story of Austrian Tyrol. Ever heard of Hitler?". Nottingham Evening Post. 1933-11-01. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "There is a strange story in "Blackwood's Magazine" this month. It is called "The Bat Artist." Out East a "bat-artist" is a chatterer, and this story is written by Forepoint Severn. The setting is in the Austrian Tyrol, "some years ago." A Scottish character is introduced in the person of one Brodie-Munro, whose particular obsession is the superiority over all others of the Nordic races."
13. E. M. H. (1938-11-23). "The Way Through. The Blind Road. By Forepoint Severn". Liverpool Daily Post. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "It is a long time since I read a book of travel and adventure that gripped me as much as "The Blind Road" did. It is a bulky book of 442 pages, but not a page is to be missed; one reads on, enthralled, to the last word. Mr. Severn writes of an expedition, of which he was the leader, through the rain, forests and swamps and amongst the foothills of the north-east frontier of India to investigate the rumour—it was little more—that there was a way, through the great Himalayan chain, between China and India. ... A great story, supremely well told."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Leonard Arthur Bethell (also known as L. A. Bethell, Forepoint Severn, and Pousse Cailloux) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard - thank you very much for your thorough and extensive coverage of this topic. Honestly - your research is better than mine ! If you wish to add to the Wiki article at all, I would be grateful. Charles.bowyer (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Had a look in newspaper coverage but didn't find anything of note. But I was only looking under his real name. Thanks to the good work of Cunard in digging out the above references, especially the first listed, my view is the subject passes GNG. Cunard's 1st source contributes to WP:BASIC and adding in the combination of sources 2 & 4 may or may not be sufficient to take it over the line of the criteria listed, it's borderline. Anyway, I judge the subject and book review sources together to pass GNG and make the subject sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. Rupples (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I’m amazed at how much everyone has been able to find. Thank you! No need to prolong this discussion further I think. Mccapra (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎ . Already deleted as G12 copyright infringement by Diannaa. czar 00:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayan circuit[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, sources are promo and ROUTINE news. Completely unnecessary promotional WP:CFORK from Swadesh Darshan Scheme. Serves no purpose other than to make reader chase links. // Timothy :: talk 10:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (WP:SNOWBALL). (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Israel (1948–present)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplication of History of Israel. Recently, the page creator already tried to split the main article, but there was no consensus to do that, because there are already more than enough of WP:CFORK on this topic (History of Israel, History of Palestine, History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel). So he just went against the RfC results, anyway. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: A bizarre request to delete an article that quite clearly deserves to exist. Most countries have an article for their history since their independence/contemporary-ear founding through to present, or some sort of other article focused specifically on their contemporary history, not least History of India (1947–present), History of Pakistan (1947–present), History of France (1900–present), History of modern Greece, History of modern Egypt, History of modern Tunisia, History of modern Mongolia, History of modern Serbia, etc. This is due to the obvious interest to readers in specifically reading about a country's formation and/or contemporary history in its own right, as well as it being an obvious wiki platform-friendly point for the division of content. The content here is already at 70kB, which rather proves the point that it is a substantial body of content in its own right, and there is plenty more than can be expanded upon; it is possible that further child articles created from this content may also need to be created. The page has already drawn in additional material from other relevant child pages that the body of content would not have been able to absorb in its existing format as a sub-section of an already grossly overlength parent article. In the absence of a consensus in the aforementioned split discussion, the WP:SPLIT guideline notes: "Failure to reach a consensus, whether the result of a split discussion or a bold split that was contested, usually results in the article remaining whole. A contested bold split may be reverted; however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own, even if the main article that it came from is not split." (my emphasis) - i.e.: exactly the situation we have here. This article has every right to exist, regardless of the material not yet being removed from parent article due to lack of agreement over how to deal with it. The page has already been edited by 6 other editors, none of whom have raised even a murmur of objection to its validity - a situation already constituting a significant WP:SILENTCONSENSUS on this. I, obviously, also do not agree with you. Other editors have already actively reverted your attempts to delete the page, another has stated "good article", and yet another has posted on my talk to congratulate a job well done, so to say that you are already obviously in the minority on this is an understatement. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was all discussed at length in the RfC two months ago, and was agreed against to. So you just decided to ignore it? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was agreed. A discussion reached a no consensus, inconclusive outcome, and the means by which to best go about rationalizing History of Israel remains unresolved. It remains an issue. You are welcome to make further suggestions to that end. That does not preclude page creation elsewhere for reasons that quite obviously abide by WP:SUMMARY. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the is a DE nom. Nomination rationale is ridiculous and show no understanding of policy and guidelines. Triggerhippie4 behavior on the page that led to this nom need to be examined. // Timothy :: talk 09:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What "policy and guidelines" are you talking about? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As someone who voted against the split proposal in the past, now I see it's much better to have a more specialized article for post-1948 history, provided the original article on History of Israel also has some summarized content on this period, albeit in a reduced form. Plus this would solve the extra size issue in the larger article. For the record, History of Germany has far more than 140kb, but even in that case they made separate articles to deal with different periods specifically. Dovidroth (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On WP:TOOLONG grounds if nothing else. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying that the parent page is too long. A better way to deal with it would be shortening pre-1948 part there, so there would be no need to create this new article, otherwise History of Israel (1948–present), History of Israel and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel are WP:CFORKs. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy has already explained WP:SUMMARY quite clearly on the child's talk page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems an entirely sensible way to proceed in all the circumstances.Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wanted to wait a bit to see the opinions of some of those who had participated in the previous split discussion. My initial reaction was that the article focusing on modern history of Israel post-Israeli Declaration of Independence should exist on its own, so I am glad to see a lot of other editors express the same sentiment. I think this is a good example of a logical split and it is clear the previous "no consensus" discussion was leaning toward some kind of solution, so to accuse the author (who has clearly put a lot of work into this page) of going against consensus does not seem very constructive. As for the nominator, I can't help but wonder why you are so determined to eliminate this article? You have not refined your argument since CSD request, which multiple editors having already objected to your line of reasoning on the talk page. To be honest, your actions are becoming disruptive and I think WP:DROPTHESTICK is the best route to follow. Ppt91 ^talk 16:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep There's enough here to support a separate article.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Company (military unit). As noted below, this article is unreferenced. Any information that can be sourced and merged is retrievable from the page history. ✗plicit 12:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Company commander[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article unsourced since 2007. WP:BEFORE search very problematic given the number of war memoirs with this title that are not particularly about this topic.

This is basically a collection of unsourced WP:DICDEFs. The relevant content can all better be covered at Company (military unit) so I propose redirecting to that page - ultimately all they are doing is repeatedly re-stating that a company commander is typically a captain or major and there are training courses for command (content already included in that article). FOARP (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Company (military unit). This information is relevant, but I'm not sure if a separate article is necessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep, or Merge to Company (military unit). — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Company (military unit) in spirit, but I'm not seeing anything reference to merge so I guess it's a redirect in practice. In any case, I don't see a good reason to have this be a dedicated article, when the overlap with Company (military unit) is so large. It might also be worth looking at Squad leader and Platoon leader as well if this ends up being merged. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Dokmaideng Hotel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Coverage is mainly listings like in travel guides. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, and Laos. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green Park Boutique Hotel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, and Laos. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 00:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Copa Petrobras Santiago – Singles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:OR. Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 06:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 06:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The minor league ATP Challenger Tour events are notable. This article just needs some sourcing. It does have an official source listed... the governing body of men's tennis the ATP. But it's under external links rather than sources. I have now added the draw source to the bottom of the draw. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 23:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently added 3 more sources (all of them in Spanish, since the tournament was held in South America) and another external source from the ITF website. Of course I'll vote to Keep. Pablito064 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s keep it. Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 00:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Tennis, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 05:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds of European ancestry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Initially, this page included a handful of references, but when I started checking each to verify the information they were placed after, I was confused to find that all I viewed until now failed verification, most of which discussed nothing relevant to the article’s topic. Earlier signs of this problem are also evident in one of the edits of the creator, where they altered sourced information (the table below), while adding another reference (that also failed verification). Another example is Headbomb’s check, where they couldn’t find any such source listed in the article. This is a very clear instance of WP:CUCKOO. Seemingly random page numbers and sometimes random titles, random sources.

Now, with the cuckoo content removed, the article is not coherent anymore and much of the remaining unchecked content will also probably fail verification. I thought of how the article could be improved. The only relevant information regarding who "Kurds of European ancestry" might be is the table, but we already have the page Chechen Kurds, which refers to Kurdified Caucasian immigrants. The original version of the article discussed Balkan immigrants to Kurdistan, but I was unable to find any sources on that. Even if there were such sources, this article wouldn’t be appropriate, since it had to be renamed as something like "Balkan immigrants in Kurdistan" or with any term popular among the sources. "Kurds of European ancestry" in itself is not appropriate since none of the sources include this term and is thus a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH grouping. The research papers on genetics are placed after very general statements and are more appropriate in a page or section about the genetics of Kurds. Overall, I can’t think of how this article can be improved. Aintabli (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A content fork. Not even worth a redirect because there are just a couple of thousand of these people and nobody will ever search for them. Desertarun (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Semsûrî (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that is this not really worthy of a separate encyclopedia entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . czar 00:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo's Chicken and Beer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable business. Citations are for a location's opening and local celebrities picking their favorite restaurant. Routines business happenings, nothing for GNG or NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm also open to merging with another article, however, I'm not sure which. Consider the following sources for WP:NCORP:

Granted, these are not NYTIMES, but they still pass WP:GNG / WP:NCORP, as they're not a opening/closing, nor passing mentions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete appears promotional and non-notable. Andre🚐 19:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you came here immediately after reverting my edits on other pages. Just thought the closing editor should be aware. Have a great day! Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the only reference that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT and it still falls short as it is local coverage. The rest are press release reprints, brief mentions, or routine announcements.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KatoKungLee:, can you point out the specific references that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WKRN source is a complete puff piece, clearly either paid or sloppily generated from a press release: Looking for a great Nashville restaurant with delicious home cooking including chicken? Waldo’s Chicken & Beer is one of our favorite places and top picks for you! Waldo’s started in Nashville’s Germantown neighborhood and now have a total of four locations throughout Nashville and Franklin. “Everything from our white beans coleslaw, mac and cheese… Everything we make is made in house, every day,” said Culinary Director Leigh Kingsbery on Local On 2. Kingsbery works on anything from crafting the menu and creating recipes to designing kitchens. And Waldo’s is not only a great place for chicken, but fun and delicious dishes perfect for game days and enjoying a local beer. Check out their signature Rotisserie Scratch Salad recipe below to try out at home or stop by one of their locations to order today! Plus not really sig cov. Williamson Source, clearly generated from a press release; no newspaper keeps track of a restaurant's "second birthday". Arkansas Online is sigcov, likely independent, RS. That's one. Valereee (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Valereee, thank you for taking the time to review. I did another search and found a couple more reviews that I believe might pass WP:RS. Any thoughts on these?

- https://tulsaworld.com/entertainment/review-bird-is-the-word-at-waldos-chicken-beer/article_c53e4cf8-7e05-11eb-9bda-6f312ef56865.html

- https://aymag.com/waldos-chicken-and-beer-finds-the-flavor/

These don't appear promotional and seem independent. I welcome your insight. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Kc, hm... About You Magazine lists their six account executives above their four editors...I'm a little leery this is paid content. A lot of these 'lifestyle' mags are. Tulsa World is unfortunately behind a paywall for me...it could be sigcov, but it's a little iffy if this coverage was basically a "what's just opened here" announcement. My feeling is that we need more than that, as that'll be true of any chain that opens in a new city and has a PR firm. If it is really a full, in-person review, I'd at least consider it a maybe, I guess? What I'd really like to see is something in a town two hours away that doesn't have one of these that is saying, "Hey, Waldo's...worth the trip to Tulsa, or at least worth a stop when you're dropping the filial unit at UT" or whatever. Valereee (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and signed up, and I believe it might meet WP:SIGCOV based on my initial reading. I'm happy to share a PDF of it, however, I want to respect their copyright concerns so I'd rather not post it publicly. Is there a way I could privately share this with you? Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can email it to me, email's enabled on my user. FWIW, I just noticed this chain opened in 2019. That's worth considering because very few restaurant chains become notable that quickly, and the ones that do tend to get national coverage. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, see WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. The About You review by Jenny Boulden contains nothing about the company and reviews a single meal. The publication (About You magazine) does not appear to be particularly notable (neither it nor the parent "company" have a wikipedia article). Looking at RESTAURANTREVIEWS, it fails as it isn't a significant review as it does not provide "broader context". It also appears to have been published in the "blog" section of the website which would raise a question mark over whether it met editorial guidelines - for example, compare the same writer's article on Murray's Restaurant where the byline identifies the publication as "Magazine" and not "Blog". HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AYM lists editors, but I do not see editorial standards listed. TW is still more local. Of course this chain will get local press in places it opens a new location. That is part of your every day run of the mill press. The media on a larger scale has not taken notice of the chain. Maybe when they get to a level of having hundreds of locations there will be significant coverage, but everything listed and what I can find fails WP:ORGCRIT (especially since most are routine announcements). CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/restaurant therefore GNG/NCORP guidelines apply. I am not seeing any significant reviews (see WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS) and the ones mentioned above are either local or not significant. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Diet Pill[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this band meets the criteria at WP:Band. I can't find any independent published news about them, they haven't charted anywhere, or won any awards. Joyous! Noise! 04:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Joyous! Noise! 04:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I also couldn't find anything that would meet the criteria at WP:Band. Equine-man (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep The result was keep WP:SNOW‎ . (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Waterways Trust[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has two references -- one is dead and the other is a primary source. Outside of the article, I can only find meaningful coverage in one secondary source ([26]), which is largely just quoting from statements. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Scotland. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a regional charity that existed for less than a decade, this isn't the highest profile subject, but there is coverage in Scottish newspapers about its programs and funding, including this about it's failure, this and this about the Canal College program, this about protecting Socttish canals, and others such as this, this, and this. --RL0919 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on balance. I've added some content and references to the article, though too many of the sources look as if they are based on press releases or other primary sources. My main reason for !voting Keep is that I'm pretty sure there is offline coverage of this in reliable sources. Funding and responsibility for the canal network has been written about, and there is a story here about lack of investment and this organisation going under which I'm sure would have received coverage at the time - the Falkirk Herald article, for instance, suggests that there was earlier coverage of the organisation's financial problems. I did wonder about suggesting a merge to its successor organisation, Keep Scotland Beautiful, but the history of the various bodies responsible for the waterways is probably too complicated to make that sensible. Tacyarg (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Tacyarg's improvements to the text and references, also agreeing with that user's reservations about the possible merge target (The Waterways Trust could be another), etc. As others have said, there is available coverage of initiatives by the SWT (seeking to establish specialist college places [27]; outreach programme at Falkirk Wheel [28]) before it was overtaken by financial problems. Local coverage, but I think on balance there is enough overall to retain this part of the history of charitable provision. AllyD (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organisation was only active for a brief period of several years, but there is coverage in a range of sources, in particular in relation to the canal college initiative that they developed. I've added further links and material to the article. They also occupy an interesting place in the reorganisation that took place around the management of canals etc in Scotland and the UK. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As it stands the article seems to show significant coverage and make clear that the organisation made enough of an impact to meet any concerns about notability. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems we are needing more keep votes to get a clearer consensus so hurry along, please. Thincat (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Desertarun (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. I don't understand why this wasn't already closed with a consensus to keep given support for that outcome is unanimous and mostly policy based. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. The nomination appears to be based on a focus on references versus sources per WP:NEXIST plus in an inability to find sources. This culminated in the usual waste of community resources, worsened by a double relist. gidonb (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. After much-extended time for discussion, and a deeper look at sources, a consensus to keep has emerged. BD2412 T 15:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kibu Denis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability. All refs are stats. Nswix (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and Tanzania. Nswix (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources below. Giant Snowman 17:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], and [40], among many many more sources. Clearly significant figure in Tanzanian football. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are in English, so I can't comment of the substance of the articles, but if this is the calibre of article that counts for significant coverage, literally any player with a couple of mentions in local papers could be considered notable. Nswix (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed ROUTINE sports news, promo, stats, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The above source are all ROUTINE sports news, nothing that shows subject meets N; normal everyday sports news does not show notability. // Timothy :: talk 09:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many of the sources are clearly not routine (for instance from three sources, titled "Who is Kibu Denis?", "The Kibu that carries the lion", and "Salute to Kibu Denis": "Kibu's journey started at Kumuyange FC, in Ngara, Kagere where he was playing in the Third Division League, he played and promoted to the Second Division League. Geita Gold FC in Geita liked him and needed his services so they signed him while they were playing in the First Division League. Mbeya City saw him in the Play Offs matches last season. Mbeya City at that time were fighting not to be relegated while Geita Gold FC themselves were fighting to go up to the Premier League. Mbeya City managed to stay in the Premier League after winning on aggregate. Kibu Denis' football journey continued after signing with Mbeya City. Kibu Denis participated for the first time by playing in the Tanzania Mainland Premier League. While he was in Mbeya City while playing for the first time in the Premier League, his team is not doing well in the league, it is currently fighting not to be relegated but Kibu Denis is lighting a fire", "KIBU Denis, since he joined Simba last season from Mbeya City, he has been among the players who get a chance to play in the first team under different coaches who have passed through Msimbazi and today he has revealed something that carries him. Kibu joined Simba, under French coach Didier Gomes who believed in him and gave him a chance and later Gomes left the team to be under Rwandan Thiery Hitimana who was also preparing Kibu's first team despite the coach staying in the team for a short time. Later came the Spaniard, Pablo Franco who used Kibu as a winger before he left and came Zoran Maki this season who despite staying for a short time was using him and now under Juma Mgunda the situation has continued like that", "As for Kibu, he ends the season as Simba's most important player. He is a player that some people do not accept. However, every day he continues to be an important player just because of his dedication. He is not a very talented player but he has compensated for his shortcomings because of his dedication. Simba is in a season that fans and leaders see as bad. The team bosses tried to bring back Clatous Chama in the squad but, Kibu has continued to be the most important player in the club despite his level dividing the fans and bosses of the team. For now you can also trust Kibu in front of Pape Sakho. You can trust Kibu in front of Chris Mugalu and others. It is possible that they have more knowledge than Kibu but Kibu is involved in more events because he is more dedicated. Something seems to be running behind him. Something that inspires him. He has lived in exile for a long time. I am told that he has lived a lot in refugee camps. Soccer is the game that has removed him from those camps and brought him to the nice hotels where he lives with his Simba team and the national team. Such a person cannot look back. He will do everything he can not to return to that life. We have players who are playing football because of their heritage houses. Others are playing because they are told they have great talent by fans. They see no reason to be active because they are told by the fans that football is like a bicycle. If you can drive you can't forget." etc etc)

Also, he is a young player with an ongoing career as a clearly significant figure in Tanzanian football and has an ongoing career in the Tanzanian national team and Tanzanian Premier League, both of which receive lots of media coverage.

On a side note, this pro deletion users comments make zero sense considering they voted keep for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felipe Ortiz (footballer) , a footballer who has much less coverage of any kind, and that their most recent article (made in March 2023) is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online... (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind, the double standard makes no sense whatsoever). Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does seem to be weakly notable, although the grammar and quality of the article is terrible. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's enough there in the sources provided by Das. For example, Binzubeiry, Meridian and Tanzania Web are all lengthy articles which discuss different aspects of Denis' career and certainly give him more than a trivial mention. I'm not familiar with the sources so perhaps someone will be able to prove that they are not WP:RS, in which case please let me know. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bin Zubeiry Sports' website (binzubeiry.co.tz) indicates that it is a blog designed by DeveloperTz. There's no byline for the article linked above, so I suspect it's a WP:SPS we cannot use.

Meridianbet is a Belgrade-based online gaming company, which apparently has an affiliate in Tanzania, and both run internet portals that offer sports news (meridianbetsport.co.tz is the Tanzanian portal). There is a byline (we only get Dickson as the author's name though), and the portal doesn't appear to be self-published. I think we can use this one, and it's more in-depth than the others, so that's helpful.

Tanzania Web (tanzaniaweb.com) is hosting/re-posting an article originally from Mwanaspoti (mwanaspoti.co.tz), which identifies itself as a blog. There is no byline, and I think it's clear this is a SPS that we cannot use.

Overall, it doesn't look like there is SIGCOV for this footballer. Jogurney (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be adequate sourcing available. ROUTINE is not applicable to people as it comes under the events notability guideline. Garuda3 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know that's not true. NOTNEWS says: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. And NSPORT itself invokes ROUTINE: Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the three sources called out by Spiderone appear to provide enough WP:SIGCOV to allow for a pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 17:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep - Article appears to ~~fail~~ be able to satisfy WP:GNG. The sources available are almost entirely from self-published sources, but The Guardian (Dar es Salaam) and Meridianbet Sport articles are not. The one that looks the most promising is the Meridianbet Sport June 2021 article titled Unamjua Kibu Denis? Tunakumegea Kidogo. ~~Unfortunately, I don't think this is enough by itself. Jogurney (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)~~ Taken together with The Guardian's coverage, I think there is just enough to be SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogurney:, I don't know how the many secondary sources above couldn't possibly be enough or what you mean by "self-published" (e.g. the second source is by Mwanachi, a Tanzanian newspaper), but even then, I have found [41], [42] ("the striker who featured for Tanzania against Malawi in a friendly... has been an outstanding player for Mbeya City in the season that is about to end and his performance has generated interest"), [43] ("The muscular attacker rose to prominence once the footballer featured for Geita Gold FC in the 2020/21 Mainland Tanzania Premier League promotion/relegation playoffs fixtures against Mbeya City FC. Geita Gold FC that was then a First Division League side lost to Premier League's Mbeya City FC in the clashes, Kibu nevertheless impressed the latter that ultimately signed him. The attacker then proved to be a key player in the Mbeya-based squad as he linked with the rest of the outfit's players to see to it the club gets hold of its position in Premier League in 2020/21 season.Kibu thereafter won a call-up to the senior national team and he was then roped in by Simba SC") and [44] ("Denis has become part of the players that have failed to win the hearts of a host of Simba SC members and fans this season as the latter feel that the attacker is hardly a threat to opposing outfits' defenses whenever he gets a chance to play") among many many more sources. Even if he didn't somehow meet GNG, which he clearly does, using common sense, he is a young player with an ongoing career in the Tanzanian national team and Tanzanian Premier League, both of which receive lots of media coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references listed above make it clear that he is notable. Nfitz (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ . This whole discussion is a train wreck and the only way to save it would be to start over from square one. Future discussions should start with a cogent argument, based on policy, explaining why this article should be deleted. If it is a content fork, how is it one. If the subject is not notable, a source analysis of how the general notability guideline is not met. People responding to it should review our list of poor arguments and avoid them. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-China terrorism in Pakistan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In this article, the facts are shown in a twisted way. Therefore, it is suggested to delete this article. Give your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooruddin2020 (talk • contribs)

Delete: I believe this article violates neutral point of view policy. Specifically, I have identified several examples of content on the page that present a biased or one-sided view of the topic without sufficient evidence to support such a view. For instance, the page appears to present a negative view of China and its relationship with Pakistan without taking into account important context or counterarguments. The information presented seems to rely heavily on anecdotal evidence or speculation rather than reliable sources, which undermines the credibility of the content. Terrorism is a broad topic and an issues in general in Pakistan, so making a point that only China is targeted in Pakistan is very biased rather both countries are cooperating to counter terrorism. Furthermore, I have found evidence from reputable sources that contradicts some of the claims made on the page. For example, 1, 2, 3 provides a more nuanced perspective on the issue that highlights the complexities and nuances of China's relationship with Pakistan. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Umais Bin Sajjad If you think the article needs improvement, I invite you to add info from the Rashid Ahmad Khan source to the article. The other two sources don't appear to be reliable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable. Not liking the current version (with very vague reasons given) is NOT an argument for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Anti-Chinese terrorism in Pakistan, as the subject matter primarily appears to focus on attacks against Chinese people, rather than the nation of China per se. BD2412 T 03:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and if the facts are shown in a twisted way, then the solution is to improve the article through normal editing, rather than deleting an article about a notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT is always a solution to WP:POV WP:OR ridden article. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in the article demonstrate notability. A valid deletion rationale has not been provided. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Such a thing does not exist.115.99.241.241 (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, obviously notable, as noted above. Please see Reasons for deletion and Alternatives to deletion. Renaming it might be a good idea, since much of the article talks about cooperation between the two countries on counterterrorism. Since the title is potentially controversial, the move should be proposed and discussed to get consensus on a better title. Uncle Spock (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing significant in this article. Much of it is already covered in Terrorism in Pakistan. We can't have separate articles for terrorism against every other country. It can be merged with the main article alternatively. Muneebll (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Terrorism, China, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Anti-Chinese terrorism in Pakistan. Lightburst (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE with the already existing main article Terrorism in Pakistan. Totally agree with Muneebll's logic above that ..."We can't have separate articles for terrorism against every other country"....Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Terrorism in Pakistan. The subject doesn't seem to deserve separate space. Insight 3 (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - No scholarly coverage is present regarding the topic of the article that is largely the outcome of WP:OR. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Terrorism in Pakistan. If the existence of this article is logical then there should be many articles like Anti-China terrorism in Pakistan, Anti-Afghan terrorism in Pakistan, Anti-Itran terrorism in Pakistan, Anti-India terrorism in Pakistan, etc. In this way, there should be articles about every country. Terrorism in Pakistan or Terrorism in ABCXYZ is enough to cover incidents --Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't follow. This article exists because there are multiple independent sources ([45], [46], [47], [48]) about this specific phenomenon that do not exist for other countries. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just visit US Travel Advisory Website and look at Afghanistan data from October 2002 to June 2022. There are 95 Terrorist Actions. There are sufficient WP:RS for every action. But, there is not any page titled Anti-America terrorism in Afghanistan. Same way for Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, there are 27 Terrorist Actions. But there is no page like Anti-America terrorism in Israel. You can check data about all countries. You did not create any page about the US but created a page for Pakistan with only 6 incidents. Further, Chinese citizens are not attacked only in Pakistan. There are incidents of attacks on the Chinese in the Central African Republic and Congo. But, there is no page like Anti-China terrorism in Africa. You showed your LOVE only for Pakistan. You are opening the door for creating thousands of new page like this for every country, as I mentioned in my earlier comment. Ameen Akbar (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect I have read many articles like these which already cover the topic. After reading WP:FORK, this seems to be a clear example.--Cheel (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this amount of detail, and all grouped together? Name the "many articles" please. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove the Attacks section from the article which is obviously a result of WP:OR, the article is barely left with five references and even those do not support the title/topic of the article. Below is the list you asked for:

China Pakistan Economic Corridor#Security
Balochistan Liberation Army#Attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriental Aristocrat (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Karachi Chinese consulate attack
Quetta Serena Hotel bombing
Dasu bus attack
Gwadar suicide attack
University of Karachi bombing Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! These areticles don't "cover the topic", they cover specific incidents. A basic function of an encyclopedia is to draw such incidents together and cover the actual topic. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - The article seems to be a compilation of individual incidents rather than a coherent narrative or analysis of a specific topic and contain redundant or overlapping information. Thus a WP:CFORK. Ainty Painty (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again - the topic is notable. Saying the current version is not much good is not a reason for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Hi, I think this article must be deleted due to its baseless subject.Engr.ismailbhutta (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, Isolated incidents of terror attacks on individuals that happen to be Chinese does not constitute "anti-China terror attacks in Pakistan." There have been attacks on Pakistanis by Pakistanis or by Afghans or Arabs. We don't need an article for "Anti-Pakistan terror attacks in Pakistan." These are attacks on various individuals who just happen to be Pakistani.--Cheel (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not always the case, especially for BLA attacks, where there is a coherent anti-Chinese policy. This is evidently a super-sensitive topic for many Pakistani editors, but Wikipedia does not accept censorship, which is what some opposes here amount to. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: that is already covered at Insurgency in Balochistan, to which the relevant content should be merged. Imagine if someone created [Anti-Israeli terrorism by Palestinians]], which is clearly well documented. Would you not argue deleting and merging that article with Palestinian political violence? VR _talk 23:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks on Chinese are included in only in some of their total attacks Cheel (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

There is no reason for keeping this article. First of all terrorism is a criminal act and should not be associated with religion, nation or any race. If this article is decided to be kept then every country's article on terrorism should be devided into different articles depending on the people who commitied and which nation or religion was targeted. It can be a heading in the artice "Terrorism in Pakistan". Tahir Mahmood (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to a lack of deletion rationale. Any errors with the article (if there are any) can be fixed by editing, which is strongly favoured over deleting. WP:ATD CT55555(talk) 14:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer: This AfD is subject to unusual activity, and I recommend evaluating the contributions of !voters for WP:SPAs before closing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per Ameen Akbar argument.Obaid Raza (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "delete" votes are making zero sense. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mind to elaborate how they are "making zero sense"? Sutyarashi (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing significant in this article," "Such a thing does not exist," etc. are the "delete" !votes. None of them make any sense. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: This seems to be a clear example of WP:FORK. Surely not worthy of another page. Either delete or merge into terrorism in pakistan page.27.7.104.126 (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to terrorism in Pakistan, of which this article is a POV fork. Do we have any other articles "Anti-X terrorism in Y"? Surely, Americans have been targeted by terrorists in many countries. Would we ever fork "Anti-Israeli terrorism by Palestinians" out of Palestinian political violence? Terror that targets Israelis is amuch better documented phenomenon. At the same time people of many nationalities have been targeted in Pakistan: Americans, Indians, Sri Lankans, Afghans. Should we now create an article for each of them? VR _talk 23:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's zero usage of this term in either news or academic sources. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer In case you are not aware of it, you should take note of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious_canvassing_at_multiple_venues. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other people's arguments. Not finding that this can be considered separately notable from just terrorism in Pakistan. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic and these attacks have been happening for a long time thus creation is totally justified. I agree that "Delete" comments make no sense. Shankargb (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why the delete votes don't make sense?VR _talk 15:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Per others' arguments (esp VR) and WP:TNT Solblaze (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Probably doesn’t deserve a standalone article.

RS here: [[49]] and here: [[50]] RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Nomader (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armin van Buuren: In the Mix[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came to this page to improve it, but this game fails WP:SIGCOV, unfortunately. Instead of PRODing, I've brought to AfD as there are some sources that I found in my search, and I think it would benefit from a community discussion before deletion. The sources that I've found are noted below:

GameSpot (a reliable source per WP:VG/RS has an extensive preview of the game here ([51]).
The press release about the creation of the game is covered in a number of blog posts from reliable sources. ([52], [53], [54])

There is no coverage in any sources I searched for in Newspapers.com or Newsbank, and absolutely no coverage of the released game. This Wii music game just doesn't meet our mark. Nomader (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Video games. Nomader (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Per source finds from Zxcvbnm, Timur9008 and Mika1h, this nomination was pre-mature and the sources easily pass WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep As you are likely aware, foreign-language sources are admissible in the Wikipedias of other languages, and I found this review in GameZone which covers the "multiple sources with significant coverage" criterion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a preview in Gamer.nl, so I am changing it to a normal "Keep" !vote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One note to your foreign language comments -- they're not only admissible in the Wikipedias of other languages, but they're also obviously admissible here, and I'm a bit embarrassed that I missed the mark following the steps of WP:BEFORE on this nomination in my sources search. On the sources themselves, if I were an uninvolved editor coming around and a WP:THREE argument was a GameSpot preview, a GameZone review, and a Gamer.nl preview, I'd be inclined to say Weak Keep and I'm strongly considering withdrawing the nomination right now. I'm going to sleep on it before I do. Nomader (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomader: See also the Eurogamer and other source found below, I think this is a clear withdraw as there is not a snowball's chance in Hell it will be deleted at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment probably a potential source [55]. I've checked the game developer's website and publisher's webiste for reviews but there is nothing there. Timur9008 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure if this should be kept but I believe there is a viable place to redirect this to if there is a a consensus against having an article. That target would be Armin van Buuren#2007–2009: Imagine since the game is mentioned in thr final paragraph of that section.--65.93.193.94 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reviews from Eurogamer and Power Unlimited: [56], [57] --Mika1h (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Fröhlich[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Hungary, and England. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D-No Entertainment[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. The sources don't establish the company itself as notable; i.e. they lack significant coverage beyond mere mention. Now, I note that most of the sources are permanently dead, but from what I could find, there just isn't enough here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Companies. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a relatively briefly active production partnership company. While some references have become inaccessible online, they appear to have been announcement-based rather than in-depth coverage about this company itself. Searches find an at-launch piece describing the firm's backers and aspirations [58] but I don't see sufficient coverage to demonstrate that the company attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 09:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elvir Melunović[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:LEAD. Also has no reliable sources Brachy08 (Let’s Have A Kiki, I Wanna Have a Kiki) 02:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brachy08 (Let’s Have A Kiki, I Wanna Have a Kiki) 02:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Serbia, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia. Skynxnex (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per COMMONSENSE and the fact that the nominator doesn't know what they are talking about (why mention WP:LEAD?! entirely irrelevant to notability) and they haven't done a BEFORE. A quick Google search brings up thousands of results, including this which confirms over 170 games in the Swiss top division, plus multiple cup and continental games. The topic is clearly notable; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. I found [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], and [64], among many many more sources. Defitneolty has offline sources also, having played over 170 games in the Swiss Super League in extensive pro career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Brachy0008, you might find this guideline useful when nominating articles for deletion: WP:BEFORE. We judge whether to keep articles based on their WP:POTENTIAL to be improved, not their current state. Cheers! –Vipz (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m gonna keep it Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 09:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Morgan Stubbe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any substantial sources for him. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and lacks reliable sources. Aintabli (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and Puerto Rico. Skynxnex (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Stubbe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Honorary Consul of Germany in Puerto Rico is not a Wiki-notable achievement. (The wording is ambiguous: it is Klaus Ranner who became Consul General in Dubai.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Germany, and Puerto Rico. Skynxnex (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No substantial coverage (the only Google Search results are accusations against a person of this name that I am unwilling to link here), and "honorary consul" is not a position that is inherently notable. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . czar 00:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Union Chargeability Act 1865[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and no valid sources. There is an ununtilized section, so it appears under construction without its valid template. Brachy08 (Let’s Have A Kiki, I Wanna Have a Kiki) 00:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin. There are entire books on this Act, and William Cunningham Glen's book is already cited in the article. There are clearly valid sources and there is no "ununtilized section". James500 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree there should not be an issue of notability, but that wasn't self-evident at the time the article was nominated. I have added several citations and have expanded the article somewhat to provide context. My text could use some attention from a person more familiar with this topic. The Caplan and Spectator articles are available online for free.

Oblivy (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a short article, but a perfectly valid one on an aspect of the English Poor Law. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.